UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT  LOS  ANGELES 


REPORT 


COTTON   INSECTS, 


UNDER  THE  DIRECTION  OF  THE  COMMISSIONER  OF  AGRICULT- 
URE IN  PURSUANCE  OF  AN  ACT  OF  CONGRESS 
APPROVED  JUNE  19,  1878. 


J.   HENRY    COMSTOCK, 

ENTOMOLOGIST  TO  THE  DEPARTMENT  OP  AGRICULTURE. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT    PRINTING-    OFFICE, 
1879. 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

March  3,  1879. 

The  following  resolution  was  agreed  to  by  the  Senate  January  28, 1879,  and  concurred 
in  by  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  March  3,  1879 : 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  (the  House  of  Representatives  concurring),  That  there  be  printed 
10,000  copies  of  the  special  report  from  the  Department  of  Agriculture  on  the  insects 
affecting  the  cotton  plant,  with  the  necessary  illustrations,  to  be  made  by  the  Public 
Printer  under  the  sanction  of  the  Joint  Committee  on  Public  Printing,  5,000  of  which 
Bhall  be  for  the  use  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  3,000  for  the  use  of  the  Senate, 
and  2,0>  0  for  the  use  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture. 

Attest : 

GEO.  C.  GORHAM, 

Secretary. 


(o  DA- 
TABLE OF  CONTENTS. 


LETTER  TO  THE  COMMISSIONER 

PART  I. 

CHAPTER  I. 


CLASSIFICATION  AND  NOMENCLATURE  .. 


Popular  names,  11 ;  scientific  classification ;  characterization  of  the  order 
Lepidoptera,  11 ;  families  of  moths,  11;  characterization  of  the  noctuidae, 
12;  tribes  of  noctuidae,  12;  injurious  insects  of  the  tribe  noctuae,  12; 
generic  and  specific  name  of  cotton-moth,  12 ;  history  of  the  synonymy  of 
the  cotton-moth :  Say's  letter  to  Dr.  Capers,  12 ;  Say's  description  of 
Noctua  xylina,  12 ;  Harris's  letter  to  Doubleday,  13 ;  Doubleday's  reply, 
13;  Harris's  letter  to  Ameck,  13;  Mr.  Wailes's  determination,  13;  Mr. 
Grote's  adoption  of  the  genus  Anomis,  14 ;  Mr.  Grote's  adoption  of  Hub- 
ner's  name  Alctia  argillacea,  14;  Hiibner's  description,  14;  scientific 
synonymy  of  Aletia  argillacea,  15. 

CHAPTER  II. 
PAST  HISTORY  OF  THE  COTTON-WORM 16 

Scarcity  of  material,  16 ;  sources  of  information,  16 ;  is  the  cotton-worm 
indigenous  ?  16 ;  early  history  of  cotton  in  the  United  States,  17  ;  the  iden- 
,  tity  of  the  South  American  chenille  of  the  last  century  with  the  cotton- 

worm  of  to-day,  18;  Fabricius's  Noctua  oossypii,  18;  Dr.  Chisholm's  descrip- 
tion of  the  chenille  of  Guiana,  18 ;  the  cotton-worm  in  Guiana  in  the 
early  part  of  the  18th  century,  19  ;  the  cotton-worm  in  the  Bahamas  in, 
the  18th  century,  19 ;  the  appointment  of  a  committee  by  the  general 
^j  assembly  of  the  Bahamas  to  investigate  the  injuries  to  cotton,  and  their 

\  report,  19  ;  emigration  of  French  planters  from  the  West  Indies  to  Georgia, 

^  in  1801,  on  account  of  the  chenille,  19 ;  first  recorded  appearance  of  the 

\  worm  in  the  United  States,  19  ;  the  worm  in  1804,  20 ;  from  1804  to  1825, 

20;  1825,20;    1826,21;   1829,21;   1830,21;   1831,21;  1832,21;   1833,21; 
|  1834, 21 ;  1835, 21 ;  1836, 21 ;  1837, 21 ;  1838, 21 ;  1839, 21 ;  1840, 21 ;  1841, 22 ; 

J  1842,22;  1843,  22;  1844,  22;  1845,  23;  1846,  23;  1847,26;  1848,27;  1849, 

27;  1850,27;  1651,27;  1852,27;  1853,27;  1854,27;  1855,27;  1856,27;  1857, 
27  ;  1858, 27  ;  1859, 27 ;  1860,  27  ;  1881, 27  ;  1862, 27  ;  1863, 28 ;  1864, 28 ;  1865, 
28 ;  1866, 28  ;  1867, 29  ;  1863, 30  ;  1869, 31 ;  1870, 31 ;  1871, 32 ;  1872, 33 ;  1873, 
34;  1874,40;  1875,42;  1876,43;  1877,  44;  1878,45;  view  of  destructive 
years,  23 ;  review  of  the  literature  up  to  1847,  26 ;  first  proposal  of  the 
migration  theory,  26 ;  Dr.  Gorham's  paper,  26 ;  prevalence  of  parasites, 
26;  history  of  the  use  of  Paris  green  as  a  remedy,  38;  the  Department 
of  Agriculture  circular  of  1873,  39  ;  Mr.  Grote's  paper  on  migration,  41 ; 
Mr.  Glover's  views,  42 ;  beginning  of  the  cotton-insect  investigation,  45 ; 
table  of  appearances  of  the  worm  and  the  amount  of  damage  done  from 
1804  to  1878,  by  counties,  47. 

STATISTICS  OF  LOSSES 63 

Difficulties  in  estimating,  63 ;  years  of  losses,  63 ;  general  estimates  of  loss, 
66;  ratio  of  loss  between  early  and  late  crops,  66;  estimates  of  loss  by 
States,  67;  Alabama,  67;  Georgia,  68;  Mississippi,  68;  Louisiana,  68; 
Texas,  69 ;  Florida,  69 ;  North  Carolina,  69 ;  South  Carolina,  69 ;  Tennes- 
see, 69 ;  Arkansas,  69 ;  summary  69 ;  table  of  average  losses,  70, 


209467 


II  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

THE  COTTON-WORM  IN  OTHER  COUNTRIES ...          71 

Confined  to  the  Western  Hemisphere,  71 ;  insects  affecting  the  crop  in  East- 
ern Hemisphere,  71 ;  extent  of  injuries  in  West  Indies,  71 ;  in  Mexico,  72; 
in  British  Guiana,  72 ;  in  Dutch  Guiana  73 ;  in  Brazil,  74. 

CHAPTER  III. 
HABITS  AND  NATURAL  HISTORY 75 

The  egg,  75 ;  larva,  76 ;  habits  of  young  larva,  76 ;  number  of  molts,  78 ;  jump- 
ing of  larvae,  79 ;  marching,  79 ;  odor  of  infested  cotton-fields,  79 ;  belief 
that  larvae  will  only  eat  cotton  of  a  certain  maturity,  80;  other  foot!  of 
larva?  than  leaves,  80 ;  time  required  for  the  development  of  larva,  80  ;  ex- 
tent of  ravages,  81 ;  other  food  plants,  81 ;  preparation  for  pupation,  82 ; 
description  of  full-grown  larva,  82  ;  variation  in  coloration,  83  ;  pupa,  83 ; 
adult,  83 ;  food  of  adult,  84  ;  nectar  of  extra  floral  glands,  84 ;  fruits,  86 ; 
power  of  piercing  the  rinds  of  fruits,  86;  position  of  moth  while  at  rest, 
88;  age  of  moth  at  oviposition,  88  ;  number  of  eggs  laid  by  a  single  moth, 
88;  duration  in  adult  state,  83;  number  of  broods,  88;  powers  of  flight, 
89;  northern  occurrence  of  Aletia,  89;  description  of  adult,  90 ;  the  "three 
crops  of  worms,"  90 ;  disappearance  of  third  crop,  91 ;  disappearance  of 
last  brood,  92 ;  first  appearance  of  the  worms  in  spring,  97  ;  hibernation, 
99;  journal  of  Mr.  Schwarz's  search  for  hibernating  cotton-moths,  102; 
Mr.  Affleck  on  hibernation,  106;  Mr.  Humphreys,  106 ;  conclusions,  108. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  THEORY  OF  MIGRATIONS  OP  THE  MOTH „ 109 

Proposed  by  Thomas  Affleck,  109 ;  Dr.  Gorham's  statement  of  the  theory, 
109;  Dr.  Burnett's  paper,  113  ;  Mr.  Grote's  paper,  115;  examination  of  the 
data  advanced  by  the  theorists,  118;  conclusions,  121 ;  influence  of  winds 
on  immigration  of  mothsy  121. 

CHAPTER   V. 

INFLUENCE  OF  WEATHER 133 

Is  a  mild  or  severe  winter  the  more  liable  to  be  followed  by  a  bad  worm 
year  !  133 ;  is  wet  or  dry  weather  the  more  favorable  to  the  increase  of  the 
worms  T  general  opinion,  134 ;  former  methods  of  accounting  for  facts,  134 ; 
Mr.  Davis's  communication  on  his  ant-theory,  134 ;  testimony  of  others, 
136;  conclusions,  137. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

NATURAL  ENEMIES  OF  THE  COTTON-WORM 138 

(a)  VERTEBRATE  ENEMIES 138 

Hogs,  138;  dogs,  138;  cats,  138;  raccoons,  138;  opossums,  138;  bats, 
108;  importance  of  birds,  139;  negative  evidence,  139;  domestic  fowls, 
139;  testimony  of  authors,  139;  testimony  of  correspondents,  140;  con- 
cerning wild  birds,  141 ;  list  of  birds  observed  to  eat  the  cotton-worm, 
141;  the  English-sparrow  question,  142;  need  of  carefully  looking 
upon  both  sides  of  the  questions,  143;  letter  from  Prof.  F.  H.  King, 
143 ;  experience  in  Georgia,  143 ;  the  discussion  of  the  Nuttal  Club, 
144 ;  Dr.  Hageu's  letter,  150 ;  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Elliot  Coues,  152  ; 
letter  of  Dr.  T.  M.  Brewer,  156;  letter  of  John  Galvin,  156;  general 
ftdvice  on  the  subject,  158  ;  list  of  insectivorous  birds  occurring  in  the 
cotton  belt,  159. 

(6)  INVERTEBRATE  ENEMIES 162 

Prcdaccous :  Use  of  the  terms  predaceous  and  parasitic,  162;  spiders, 
162 ;  aphis  lions,  164 ;  musquito  hawks,  164 ;  rear-horses,  165 ;  the 
spined  soldier  bug,  166;  the  green  soldier  bug,  167  ;  the  thick-thighed 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  Ill 

(&)  INVERTEBRATE  ENEMIES— Continued. 

metapodius,  167 ;  the  devil's  horse,  168 ;  the  rapacious  soldier  bug, 
169;  the  asilus  flies,  170 ;  tiger  beetles,  173;  ground  beetles,  174;  sol- 
dier beetles,  175;  lady  bugs,  176;  the  boll-worm,  179;  the  grass- 
worm,  179;  wasps,  180;  ants,  181;  general  testimony,  184;  Dr.  Mc- 
Cook's  report,  182. 

Parasitic :  Former  notices  of  parasites,  190 ;  Dr.  Gorham's  account,  190 ; 
Mr.  Affleck's  account,  191 ;  Mr.  Glover's  account,  191 ;  Dr.  Phares's 
mention,  192 ;  Mr.  Jones's  account,  192 ;  the  cotton-worm  egg  para- 
site, 193 ;  general  remarks  on  chalcididae,  193 ;  the  ovate  chalcis,  194  ; 
Cirrospilus  esurus,  195;  unnamed  chalcid  parasite,  196;  Didictyum  zig- 
zag, 197;  general  remarks  on  ichneumonidae,  198;  the  yellow-banded 
ichneumon,  198;  the  ring-legged  pimpla,  200;  Cryptus  nun<iius,  201; 
the  tachina  flies,  202;  the  flesh  flies,  204;  Phora  aletiae,  208;  sum- 
mary, 211. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

REMEDIES 215 

Report  of  experiments  by  Mr.  Trelease,  215 ;  preventive  measures,  230 ;  pro- 
tection of  insectivorous  birds,  230 ;  encouragement  of  the  insect  enemies 
of  the  cotton- worm,  230;  thorough  cultivation,  231;  destruction  of  eggs, 
231 ;  collecting  larvae  by  hand,  231 ;  destruction  of  larvae  by  poisons,  232  ; 
Paris  green,  232;  Texas  cotton-worm  destroyer,  233;  London  purple,  234; 
Johnson's  dead-shot,  234 ;  objections  to  the  use  of  arsenic  and  its  com- 
pounds, 234 ;  carbolic  acid,  235 ;  kerosene,  235 ;  pyrethrum,  236 ;  modes 
of  applying  poisons,  236 ;  wet  poisons,  238  ;  Whitman's  fountain  pump, 
239  ;  Doughtry's  machine,  243 ;  Willis's  machine,  243 ;  Johnson's  machine, 
244  ;  dry  poisons,  245 ;  Young's  dusting  apparatus,  246  ;  Allen's  machine, 
247 ;  Willis's  machine  for  dry  poisons,  248 ;  Davis's  machine,  249 ;  Levy's 
machine,  250;  Eldridge's  machine,  251;  Robinson's  machine,  252;  de- 
struction of  larvae  by  machinery:  Helm's  machine,  253;  Ewing's  ma- 
chine, 255 ;  destruction  of  pupae,  256. 

Destruction  of  moths :  General  testimony,  256 ;  poisoned  sweets,  257 ;  testi- 
mony, 258;  observations  of  Professor  Smith,  259;  observations  of  Pro- 
fessors Willet  and  Comstock,  260 ;  fruit  recommended,  261 ;  best  poison, 
261 ;  advisability  of  use  of  poisoned  sweets,  262 ;  Heard's  moth  trap,  262 ; 
fires,  262;  trap  lanterns,  263;  Colonel  Lewis's  lantern,  263;  Mr.  Trelease's 
evidence,  2(54 ;  conclusions  in  regard 'to  the  use  of  lanterns,  264;  B.  F. 
McQueen's  lantern,  265 ;  I.  G.  G.  Garrett's  lantern,  266;  J.  R.  Duke's 
lantern,  267;  J.  R.  Stephens's  invention,  267;  Richard  Pitman's  moth 
trap,  268 ;  C.  R.  Dudley's  moth  trap,  269 ;  G.  C.  Cranston's  lantern,  270 ; 
E.  D.  Pugh's  lantern,  271 ;  Thomas  Byrne's  lantern,  272;  Mark  Rigel's  in- 
vention, 273  ;  J.  Stith's  lantern,  274. 

CHAPTER   VIII. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 276 

PART  II. 
THE  BOLL-WORM. 

CHAPTER  I. 

IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT 287 

Comparison  of  the  destruction  caused  by  the  cotton- worm  and  the  boll- 
worm,  287 ;  testimony  of  correspondents,  288  ;  injury  to  corn,  289 ;  esti- 
mates of  damage  by  boll-worm  exaggerated,  289;  insects  causing  Jailing 
of  bolls  and  buds,  the  work  of  which  is  laid  .to  the  boll-worm,  290. 


IV  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  n. 

NATI-RAL  HISTORY 292 

Nomenclature  :,  popular  names,  292;  scientific  classification,  292 ;  synonym, 
292.  Geographical  distribution,  293.  Food  plants :  Identity  of  corn  and 
boll  worms,  294  ;  on  tomatoes,  295 ;  on  garden  peas,  296 ;  chick-pea,  296  ; 
cow-pea,  298;  string-beans,  297;  Lima  bean,  297;  Erythrina  herbacea, 
297  ;  pumpkin,  297 ;  red  pepper,  297  ;  squash,  297 ;  rose  mallow,  297 ;  glad- 
iolus, 297 ;  on  Indian  corn,  hemp,  tobacco,  and  lucerne,  in  Europe,  297. 
The  egg :  description,  297  ;  number  of  eggs  laid  by  one  female,  298 ;  time 
and  place  of  depositing  the  eggs,  298 ;  duration  of  egg  state,  299.  The 
larra:  habits  of  young  larva,  299;  description  cf  young  larva,  299;  di- 
versity of  color  in  larvae,  301 ;  habits  of  mature  larvae,  301 ;  carnivorous 
propensities  of  boll-worm,  303.  The  chrysalis,  304.  The  moth :  variation 
in  markings,  306 ;  time  of  flight,  306  ;  food,  306.  Number  of  broods,  307  ; 
corn-bnd  worms,  307 ;  second  brood,  307;  third  brood,  308;  fourth  brood, 
308  ;  fifth  brood,  308 ;  variations,  309.  Influence  of  weather,  309. 

CHAPTER  III. 

REMEDIES 311 

Natural  remedies,  311;  topping,  312;  poisoning,  312;  hand-picking,  312; 
rotation  of  crops,  313 ;  destruction  of  chrysalides,  314 ;  destruction'  of 
moths,  315. 

PART  III. 

NECTAR  AND  ITS  USES o!9 

Early  use  of  the  word  nectar,  319;  modern  definitions — Linnaeus,  Gray, 
Sachs,  Dclpino,  Dartvin — proposed  definition,  320;  structure  of  nectar 
glands,  320 ;  nectar  either  floral  or  extra  floral,  320 ;  homology  and  situation 
of  glands,  321 ;  use  of  floral  nectar ;  example,  the  cotton  flawer,  its  structure, 
nectar,  and  visiting  insects,  321 ;  extra  floral  nectar  of  Coronilla  varia,  and 
its  use,  323;  of  the  bonnet  squash,  323;  of  Passiflora  incarnata,  323;  of 
Marcgravia  nepenthoides,  323;  of  Poinseftia  pulcherrima,  324 ;  of  the  invol- 
ucre of  Gossypium,  324;  of  the  cow-pea,  325;  honey  dew,  326 ;  glands  on. 
the  serrations  of  certain  leaves,  326 ;  on  the  phyllodia  of  Acacia  magnifica, 
326 ;  on  the  leaves  of  Gossypium,  327 ;  on  leaves  of  the  bonnet  squash,  327 ; 
nectar,  protoplasmic  bodies,  and  hollow  thorns  of  Acacia  sphaerocephala 
and  their  use,  327;  nectar  on  leaves  and  bracts  of  Cassia  occidentalis,  328 ; 
on  leaves  of  species  of  Sarracenia,  Darlingtonia,  and  Nepenthes,  328 ;  classifi- 
cation of  nectar  according  to  its  uses,  329  ;  tabular  representation  of  this 
classification,  329;  habits  of  ants,  330;  destructiveuess  to  vegetation  of 
leaf-cutting  species,  330 ;  nocturnal  activity  of  some,  330 ;  means  by  which 
plants  are  protected  from  their  attacks,  330 ;  greater  secretion  of  glands 
of  cotton  by  night  than  by  day,  331 ;  supposition  that  it  might  be  hygro- 
scopic, 331;  error  of  this  supposition,  explanation  of  the  phenomena 
attending  it,  331 ;  injury  done  the  plant  by  attracting  moths  of  Aletia  and 
Heliothis,  331 ;  this  injury  only  in  recent  times,  332 ;  why  natural  selection 
does  not  remove  the  glands  on  account  of  this  fhjury,  332 ;  why  natural 
selection  should  remove  their  activity  if  their  secretion  is  a  drain  on  the 
strength  of  the  plant,  332  ;  their  activity  in  prolific  varieties  of  cotton  an 
indication  that  the  secretion  of  nectar  taxes  the  vital  force  of  a  plant  but 
little,  332 ;  why  active  nectar  glands  in  other  species  exist  long  after  their 
utility  has  ceased,  332;  use  of  glands  of  cow-pea,  332;  habits  of  bees, 
wasps,  ants,  and  humming-birds  in  visiting  nectar-secreting  plants,  333 ; 
brief  summary  bibliography,  especially  of  articles  written  in.  the  English 
language,  333. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  V 

APPENDICES. 

Page. 
APPENDIX  I 347 

REPORTS   OF   SPECIAL  AGENTS  AND  LOCAL  OBSERVERS  : — 

ReportofA.R.  Grote,  of  Buffalo,  N.  T 351 

Report  of  E.  A.  Schwarz,  of  Washington,  D.  C 347 

Report  of  E.  H.  Anderson,  M.  D.,  of  KirTcwood,  Miss 352 

Report  of  Judge  W.  J.  Jones,  of  Virginia  Point,  Tex 356 

Report  of  Prof .  J.  E.  Willet,  of  Macon,  Ga 358 

Report  of  William  Trelease,  of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y 361 

APPENDIX  II 380 

ANSWERS  OF  CORRESPONDENTS  TO  THE   1878  CIRCULAR. 

Earliest  year  in  which  cotton  was  first  grown,  380 ;  earliest  year  in  which 
the  worm  was  seen,  384;  years  of  unusual  abundance,  388;  effects  of 
weather  on  the  insect,  391 ;  character  of  seasons  most  favorable  to  its  in- 
crease, 394 ;  character  of  summer  and  winter  preceding  severe  worm 
years,  397 ;  do  wet  summers  favor  its  multiplication  ?  400 ;  effect  of  weather 
upon  the  eggs,  402 ;  effect  of  weather  upon  the  moths,  404  ;  month  of  year 
when  greatest  injury  is  done,  406 ;  statistics  of  losses  during  notable  worm 
years,  409;  prevailing  direction  and  force  of  wind,  413;  direction  and 
force  of  the  wind  during  February,  416 ;  March,  417 ;  April,  418 ;  May, 
420 ;  June,  421 ;  are  there  winds  from  the  south  strong  enough  to  coun- 
teract the  trade  winds  ?  422 ;  the  prevailing  direction  of  the  wind  from 
July  till  frost,  425 ;  the  side  of  a  field  on  which  the  worms  first  begin 
work,  427 ;  effect  of  local  topographical  features  on  extent  of  ravages, 
429 ;  is  there  any  other  food  plant  ?  432 ;  time  of  year  when  the  moths 
are  first  noticed,  435 ;  time  of  year  when  the  worms  are  first  noticed,  437 ; 
time  of  year  when  the  last  worms  are  seen,  440 ;  number  of  broods,  442 ; 
other  situations  beside  cotton  leaves  in  which  the  worms  have  been  known 
to  spin  up,  445 ;  has  the  chrysalis  been  known  to  survive  a  frost,  or  to  be 
found  in  a  sound  and  healthy  condition  in  winter  ?  448 ;  has  the  moth  been 
found  hibernating  ?  451 ;  how  late  in  the  spring  has  the  moth  been  found 
alive?  454;  vertebrate  enemies  of  the  cotton-worm,  456;  invertebrate  ene- 
mies, 459 ;  estimates  of  the  relative  value  of  poisoned  sugar,  molasses 
and  vinegar,  and  fires  for  killing  the  moths,  461 ;  relative  value  of  sweets 
smeared  upon  trees  and  contained  in  vessels,  465;  what  flowers  are 
attractive  to  the  moths,  467;  influence  of  jute,  469  ;  efforts  to  destroy  the 
moths  in  winter  quarters,  470;  efforts  to  destroy  the  chrysalides,  472; 
efforts  to  destroy  the  eggs,  473 ;  is  Paris  green  the  best  poisonous  mix- 
ture for  destroying  the  worms  ?  475 ;  injurious  effects  following  the  use 
of  Paris  green,  477;  best  and  most  effective  method  of  destroying  the 
worms,  480 ;  the  average  cost  per  acre  for  protecting  it  by  the  best  means 
known,  482 ;  other  cotton  insects,  484. 
APPENDIX  III. 

LIST  OF  CORRESPONDENTS 491 

INDEX...  495 


LETTER  TO  THE  COMMISSIONER. 


WASHINGTON,  November  14, 1879. 

SIR  :  In  accordance  with  the  instructions  which  I  received  from  you 
when  entering  upon  my  duties  as  Entomologist  to  the  Department  of 
Agriculture,  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  a  report  of  the  investigation  of 
insects  injurious  to  the  cotton  plant,  which  has  been  carried  on  by  this 
department.  This  investigation  was  begun  July  1,  1878,  and  was  con- 
tinued until  the  close  of  the  present  season. 

The  following  extract  from  the  annual  report  of  this  department  for 
1878  (pp.  210-215),  gives  the  history  of  that  part  of  the  investigation 
conducted  by  my  predecessor,  Prof.  C.  V.  Biley. 

Pursuant  to  an  appropriation  by  the  last  Congress  for  the  purpose,  and  in  accordance 
with  your  instructions,  I  have  carried  on  a  special  investigation  of  the  insects  injuri- 
ous to  the  cotton  plant.  The  commission  of  inquiry  was  organized  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  following  gentlemen  :  As  special  agents,  Prof.  J.  H.  Comstock,  of  Ithaca, 
N.  Y.,  whose  position  as  professor  of  entomology  in  Cornell  University  and  whose  ex- 
perience with  insects  injurious  to  vegetation  had  well  fitted  him  for  such  labor  ;  and 
Prof.  A.  R.  Grote,  of  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  whom  a  residence  of  several  years  at  Demopolis, 
Ala.,  and  a  special  study  of  the  cotton-worm,  had  also  well  prepared  for  the  inquiry. 
As  local  agents  and  observers :  Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  of  Kirkwood,  Miss. ;  William  J. 
Jones,  of  Virginia  Point,  Tex. ;  Prof.  J.  E.  Willet,  of  Macon,  Ga. ;  and  Prof.  Eugene  A. 
Smith,  of  Tuscaloosa,  Ala.  Mr.  E.  A.  Schwarz,  of  Detroit,  Mich.,  has  also  been  en- 
gaged during  the  winter  to  visit  all  the  Southern  States  and  the  West  India  islands, 
with  a  special  view  of  getting  at  the  facts  of  hibernation.  To  Prof.  Comstock  was  as- 
signed the  cotton  region  of  Arkansas  and  Tennessee,  and  of  Mississippi  and  Alabama 
north  of  Vicksburg  and  Meridian  and  the  Alabama  Central  Railroad ;  to  Mr.  Grote  that 
of  Florida  and  Georgia,  and  of  Alabama  south  of  the  railroad  mentioned ;  while,  with  the 
assistance  of  the  local  observers,  I  have  myself  given  more  especial  attention  to  the  ex- 
tremities of  the  belt,  viz,  Texas,  Louisiana,  Southern  Mississippi,  and  the  Carolinas. 

The  following  circular-letter  was  prepared  for  the  use  of  agents,  and  distributed, 
with  corresponding  blanks,  to  correspondents  in  the  cotton  belt.  It  will  explain  the 
scope  of  the  inquiry  : 

DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  July  22,  1878. 

SIR  :  The  entomologist  of  the  department  having  prepared  a  series  of  inquiries  for 
the  special  scientific  observers  to  whom  has  been  assigned  the  duty  of  studying  the 
history  and  depredation  of  the  worm  known  as  Alelia  argillacea,  as  well  as  other  in- 
sects which  injure  the  cotton  plant,  I  have  caused  copies  of  these  circulars  to  be  printed 
and  sent  you,  in  hope  that  you  may  feel  interest  enough  in  the  subject  to  make  report 
thereon. 

Should  you  do  so,  please  observe  carefully  the  following  suggestions : 

Write  only  on  one  side  of  the  paper  blanks  sent;  and,  if  more  room  is  desired  to  an- 
swer fully,  write  on  another  sheet,  numbering  and  lettering  to  correspond  with  letter 
and  number  of  question. 

If  any  special  points  arise  before  the  termination  of  the  season,  please  communicate 
freely,  marking  your  envelope  "cotton  insects." 
Respectfully,  &c., 

WM.  G.  LE  DUC,  Commissioner. 


REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 


THE  COTTON- WORM. 

This  insect  (Alctia  argillacea,*  HUbu.)  will  naturally  receive  most  attention,  being, 
as  it  is,  by  far  the  most  injurious  of  the  different  enemies  of  the  cotton  plant.  Data 
are  requested  on  all  the  following  topics : 

PAST  HISTORT  OF  THE    COTTON-WORM. 

1.  Give,  so  far  as  you  can  from  trustworthy  records,  the  earliest  year  in  which  cot- 
ton was  grown  in  your  State,  county,  or  locality. 

la.  During  what  year  (exact  or  approximate)  did  the  worm  first  make  its  appear- 
ance in  your  locality,  and,  as  far  as  you  are  aware,  in  the  State ;  in  other  words,  how 
many  years  elapsed  after  cotton  first  began  to  be  grown  before  the  worm  began  to 
work  upon  it  ? 

16.  Specify  the  years  -when  it  has  been  unusually  abundant  and  destructive. 

INFLUENCE  OF  THE  WEATHER  ON  THE  INSECT. 

'2  State  what  you  know  from  experience  of  the  effects  of  weather  on  the  insect,  and 
more  particularly — 

2a.  The  character  of  seasons  most  favorable  to  its  increase. 

26.  The  character  of  the  summer  and  winter — whether  wet  or  dry,  mild  or  severe — 
that  have  preceded  years  in  which  the  worm  has  been  abundant  and  destructive. 

2c.  Do  wet  summers  favor  its  multiplication  f 

2d.  Effects  of  different  kinds  of  weather  on  the  eggs. 

2e.  Effects  of  different  kinds  of  weather  on  the  moths. 

2/.  Month  of  year  when  greatest  injury  is  done. 

STATISTICS  OF  LOSSES. 

3.  Give,  as  correctly  as  you  can,  estimates  of  the  loss  to  the  crop  in  your  county  and 
State  during  notable  cotton-worm  years. 

MIGRATIONS  OF  THE  MOTHS. 

It  is  a  well-established  fact  that  the  parent  moth  of  the  cotton-worm  is  often  found 
in  autumn  many  hundred  miles  away  from  the  cotton  belt,  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  it  is  often  carried  by  favorable  winds  to  northward  regions  where  it  can- 
not perpetuate  its  species  and  must  therefore  perish.  Mr.  A.  R.  Grote  and  others  even 
believe  that  the  species  perishes  each  year  with  the  plant,  and  that  the  moth  always 
comes  into  the  cotton  States  from  more  Southern  countries,  where  the  cotton  plant  is 
perennial;  in  other  words,  that  the  inoth  is  habitually  migratory  and  cannot  survive 
the  winter  in  the  great  cotton  regions  of  the  States.  While  there  are  many  facts  that 
lend  weight  to  this  theory,  there  is,  also,  much  to  be  said  against  it ;  and  we  d.  sir,  to 
collect  all  facts  that  in  any  way  bear  on  the  question.  While  we  hope  to  get  much 
valuable  information  on  this  head  from  the  Signal  Bureau,  we  also  ask  for  the  expe- 
rience of  correspondents. 

4.  Please  state,  therefore,  as  nearly  as  you  can  from  the  records,  the  prevailing  direc- 
tion and  force  of  the  wind  in  your  locality,  first, 

4a.  In  the  month  of  February ;  second, 

46.  In  the  month  of  March  ;  third,  « 

4c.  In  the  month  of  April ;  fourth, 

4rf.  In  the  month  of  May  ;  fifth, 

4c.  In  the  month  of  June ;  sixth, 

4/.  \\lK-tli.-r,  in  your  opinion,  there  are  winds,  from  the  south  that  are  sufficiently 
strong  and  constant  to  counteract  the  prevailing  trade-winds  which  are  toward  the 
equator. 

"  The  Noctua  xylina  of  Say. 


CIRCULAR.  5 

4(/.  The  prevailing  direction  of  the  wind  from  July  till  frost. 
4/f.  The  sid^  of  a  field  on  which  the  worms  first  begin  to  work. 
4i.  Do  local  topographical  features  influence  the  extent  of  the  worm's  ravages  f 
4j.  Does  or  can  the  worm  feed  upon  any  other  plant  than  cotton,  and  have  you  ever 
known  it  to  do  so  ? 

HABITS  AND  NATURAL  HISTORY. 

These  have  already  been  studied,  and  are  pretty  well  known ;  but  experience  will 
differ  somewhat  with  locality,  and  we  call  attention  to  the  following  topics: 

5.  State  the  time  when  the  first  moths  are  noticed  in  your  locality. 
5a.  Date  when  the  first  worms  have  been  noticed  in  past  years. 

56.'  Date  when  the  last  worms  have  been  seen  in  past  years,  or  were  noticed  the 
present  year. 

DC.  Number  of  broods  or  generations  of  the  worms  generally  produced. 

M.  In  what  other  situations  besides  the  folded  cotl  on  leaves  have  you  known  the 
worms  to  spin  f 

5e.  Have  you  ever  known  the  chrysalis  to  survive  a  frost,  or  to  be  found  in  sound 
and  healthy  condition  in  winter  ? 

5f  Have  you  ever  found  the  moth  hibernating  or  flying  during  mild  winter  weather  f 

5<jr.  How  late  in  the  spring  has  the  moth  been  found  alive  ? 

NATURAL  ENEMIES. 

It  is  a  little  singular  that  no  enemies  of  the  cotton- worm  have  hitherto  been  re- 
ported. That  the  insect  has  its  enemies,  both  special  and  general,  there  can  be  little 
doubt,  and  we  would  ask  particular  attention  to  the  following  topics  : 

6.  Are  any  birds,  quadrupeds,  or  reptiles  known  to  attack  the  insect  in  your  locality  ? 
6a.  Are  any  predaceous  insects  or  parasites  known  to  prey  upon  it,  either  in  the  egg, 

larva,  or  clirysalis  state  ? 

REMEDIES  AND   METHODS  OF  DESTRUCTION. 

7.  What  has  beerf  the  result  of  the  efforts  to  allure  and  destroy  the  moths,  and  w  hat 
methods  have  proved  most  satisfactory  ?     Give  your  estimate  of  the  relative  value  for 
this  purpose  of  poisoned  sugar,  molasses  and  vinegar,  and  fires. 

la.  Are  the  moths  most  attracted  to  sweetened  substances  when  smeared  onto  trees, 
boards,  etc.,  or  when  contained  in  vessels  in  or  near  \vhich  lamps  may  be  lighted? 

7b.  Are  any  flowers  known  to  be  attractive  to  the  moth  ?  If  so,  specify  them  and 
thoir  season  of  blooming. 

7c.  What  do  you  know  of  your  own  observation  of  the  influence  of  jute  grown  near 
or  with  the  cotton  ? 

Id.  Has  any  effort  beeen  made  to  destroy  the  moth  in  its  winter  quarters  ? 

7e.  Have  any  systematic  and  organized  attempts  been  made  to  gather  and  destroy 
the  chrysalides,  or  to  facilitate  their  collection  and  destruction  by  furnishing  inviting 
material  for  the  worms  to  sp  n  up  in  ? 

?/.  What  has  been  done  toward  destroying  the  eggs  ? 

7g.  Has  anything  been  found  more  generally  useful  and  applicable  or  chearper  than 
the  use  of  the  Paris  green  mixture  to  destroy  the  worms. 

7h.  Have  you  known  of  any  injurious  effects  following  the  use  of  this  poison,  either 
to  the  plant,  to  man,  or  to  animals  ? 

7i.  State  what  you  consider  the  best  and  most  effective  method  of  destroying  them 
in  your  section. 

7;.  State  the  cost  per  acre  of  protecting  a  crop  by  the  best  means  employed. 

EF3  IVe  shall  be  glad  to  receive  figures,  either  photographs  or  drawings,  of  machines  or  con- 
trivances employed  for  the  wholesale  use  of  the  Paris  green  mixture,  either  in  the  fluid  state  or 
as  ti  powder  ;  or  any  other  kinds  of  machines  or  traps  employed  for  the  destruction  of  the  in- 
sect. Models  of  such  are  still  more  desirable,  and  may  be  sent  by  express  unpaid  to  the  de- 
partment. 


6  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

OTHER   COTTON   INSECTS. 

There  are  many  other  insects  that  attack  and  do  more  or  less  injury  to  the  cotton 
plant.  Many  of  these  have  been  figured  and  .  eferred  to  by  the  former  entomologist 
to  the  department,  Mr.  Towuend  Glover,  but  there  is  much  yet  to  learn  of  their 
habits  and  natural  history  and  of  the  best  means  of  subduing  them.  Specimens  of 
all  insects  that  may  be  found  upon  the  plant  are,  therefore,  earnestly  solicited,  with 
accounts  of  their  work  and  habits  and  the  amount  of  injury  they  do.  These  speci- 
mens are  best  sent  by  mail,  in  tight  >in  or  wood  n  boxes.  If  living  (and  all  found 
feeding  on  the  plant  should  thus  b  •  sent)  a  supply  of  food  should  be  inclosed  with 
them ;  if  first  killed,  they  should  be  carefully  packed  in  a  little  cotton  to  prevent 
shaking  and  breaking. 

BP  Correspondents  who  desire  to  make  especial  observations  with  a  view  of  replying  to  this 
circular,  and  who  wish  furthe  information  as  to  the  best  manner  of  preserving  specimens- 
will  receive  assistance  an  .further  instructions  upon  communicating  with  the  department. 

CHAS.  V.  RILEY, 

Entomologist, 

Two  circumstances  have  somewhat  interfered  with  the  'nquiry,  viz,  the  yellow 
fever  and  the  general  freedom  of  the  plant  from  the  cotton- worm,  the  serious  injuries 
of  this  last  having  been  restricted  to  the  cane-brake  regions  of  Alabama  and  to  the 
southwest  counties  of  Georgia,  especially  the  country  between  the  forks  of  the  Flint 
and  Chattahoochee  Rivers — the  more  malarious  portions  of  either  State.  Its  appear- 
ance n  injurious  numbers  both  here  and  in  South  Texas  was  from  four  to  six  weeks 
later  than  usual,  and  this  was  one  cause  of  the  small  amottut  of  injury  done.  The 
weather  at  the  time  of  their  greatest  abundance  was  wet  and  interfered  with  the  ap- 
plication of  remedies. 

Professor  Comstock's  observations  were  chiefly  confined  to  that  fertile  cotton-grow- 
ing region  along  the  line  of  the  Alabama  Central  Railroad,  known  as  the  "  cane-brake." 
He  reach  d  Sehna  July  20.  There  he  met  many  prominent  planters,  and  from  them 
collected  important  statistics  respecting  the  occurrence  of  the  cotton- worm  and  the 
results  of  experiments  in  the  use  of  remedies  for  this  species.  July  23  he  began  his 
field  observations  near  Uniontowu,  Perry  County,  and  from  that  time  on,  till  the  mid- 
dle of  October,  he  was  constantly  engaged  in  studying  the  habits  of  cotton  insects  mi 
plantal  ions  in  Dallas,  Perry,  Hale,  and  Mareugo  Counties.  His  only  absence  from  this 
region  was  from  August  10  to  August  15,  when  I  directed  him  to  make  a  trip  through 
tin-  state  northward  as 'far  as  Madison  County,  where  much  cotton  is  grown.  Profes- 
sor Comstock  has  prepared  a  full  and  valuable  report,  which  will  be  incorporated  in 
the  final  report  of  the  investigation. 

Professor  Grote's  operations  will  appear  by  the  following  extract  from  a  brief  re- 
port submitted. 

[  Professor  Grote's  report  is  given  in  full  in  Appendix  I  of  this  work.     J.  H.  C.  ] 

starting  sontli  myself  the  latter  part  of  August,  I  passed  through  Tennessee  to 
Mitchell  County  in  Southwest  Georgia,  and  thence,  during  September,  through  the 
<-.)tton  sections  of  the  southeastern  part  of  that  State  and  of  the  Carolinas  and  Vir- 
ginia. I  was  at  this  time  made  painfully  aware  of  the  hindering  .-fleets  of  the  yellow 
f.-ver.  One  can  scarcely  conceive  of  the  panic  and  excitement  that  prevailed,  even  in 
regions  where  there  was  little  or  no  danger.  But  a  few  weeks  before  in  the  thicker 
<•  ittim  counties  of  Alabama  and  Georgia  the  prevailing  topic  of  conversation,  as  I 
learned,  was  the  work  of  the  Cotton-worm.  At  the  time  of  my  visit  its  injuries  were 
forgot  ten  in  the  all-absorbing  subject  of  the  epidemic.  Colt  mi  fields  were  neglected, 
and  in  M.uht  of  acres  of  stripped  and  spindling  stalks  one  heard  but  the  universal  re- 
frain—yellow fever,  yellow  fever.  It  seriously  interfered  with  my  own  plans,  and 
oldiged  tue  to  avoid  the  very  Mi»i>Mppi  cotton  fields  which  I  desired  most  to  visit. 

Notwithstanding  tliis  serious  drawback  to  the  present  year's  operations,  much  that 
is  valuable  and  important  has  been  learned.  There  is  a  very  general  want  of  knowl- 


THE   WOKK   OF   1879.  7 

edge  among  the  people  of  the  South  regarding  the  real  habits  of  the  cotton-worm,  and 
I  find  that  the  opinions  of  the  most  observant  are  seldom  founded  on  intelligent  ob- 
servation; and  that  such  opinions  are  consequently  of  little  value.  This  state  of 
things  is  due  to  three  evident  causes :  First,  the  general  unhealthiness  of  the  region 
in  which  the  insect  does  most  damage,  and  the  intense  heat  that  prevails  during  the 
months  when  most  of  the  observations  must  be  made ;  secojid,  the  fact  that  the  culture 
of  the  crop  is  turned  over  to  uneducated  and  unobserviug  negroes ;  third,  the  failure 
to  discriminate  between  the  cotton-worm  and  the  Boll-worm  (Heliothis  armigera)  in 
their  later  stages,  and  the  natural  difficulty  that  besets  the  solution  of  some  of  th  e 
questions,  such  as  the  winter  habits  of  the  Aletia. 

It  had  often  been  a  wonder  to  me  that  no  true  parasite  had  ever  been  found  infest- 
ing this  insect  since  there  scarcely  exists  a  plant-feeding  species  that  is  not  attacked 
by  some  parasite.  No  less  than  nine  distinct  species  of  these  parasites  have  been  dis- 
covered on  the  cotton-worm  this  summer,  and  this  fact  has  an  important  bearing  oil 
several  of  the  knotty  questions  that  present  themselves  in  our  inquiry.  Again,  I  had 
wondered  what  plants  the  moth  naturally  fed  from,  since  it  was  known  to  be  fond 
of  sweets,  and  had,  to  my  knowledge,  done  considerable  injury  by  boring  into  various 
ripe  fruits.  The  cotton  plant  is  peculiar  for  having  a  gland  on  the  under  side  of  from 
one  to  three  ribs  of  the  more  mature  leaves,  and  a  still  larger  gland  at  the  outer  base 
of  the  three  lobes  of  the  involucre.  As  soon  as  I  learned  that  these  glands  secreted  a 
sweetened  liquid,  I  inferred  that  the  plant  would  be  found  to  furnish  nourishment  to 
the  moth  as  well  as  to  the  larva,  and  drew  attention  to  this  belief  in  the  Atlanta,  Ga., 
Constitution,  of  September  8,  1878.  It  was  with  no  small  degree  of  pleasure  that  at 
Baconton  subsequently,  in  company  with  Professors  Comstock  and  Willett,  I  was  able 
to  prove  my  anticipation  correct,  by  studying  the  normal  habits  of  the  moth  with  a 
dark -lantern  at  night.  The  moth  is,  therefore,  attracted  to  the  plant  by  the  sweets 
which  this  last  affords,  and  as  these  sweets  are  first  produced  when  the  plant  begins  to 
flower  and  fruit,  we  have  here  a  possible  explanation  of  the  well-known  fact  that  the 
worm  is  seldom  noticed  on  the  young  plant  till  about  the  time  of  fruiting.  We  have 

so  discovered  that  the  moth  feeds  on  the  honey  copiously  secreted  from  glands  oc- 
curring at  the  apex  of  the  peduncle  just  above  the  pods  of  the  cow-pea  (Dolyclios),  ex- 
tensively grown  through  the  South  as  a  forage  plant ;  also  on  the  sweet  exudation 
from  the  flowers  of  Paspalum  Iceve,  a  tolerably  common  grass.  It  is  by  taking  advan- 
tage of  this  love  for  sweets  which  the  moth  possesses  that  we  shall  probably  arrive  at 
one  of  the  most  effectual  ways  of  preventing  the  ravages  of  the  worm,  for  if  we  can 
allure  the  first  moths  of  the  season  to  certain  death,  we  nip  the  evil  in  the  bud. 

Upon  the  1st  of  May,  1879,  Professor  Biley's  resignation  taking  effect 
at  that  date,  I  was  placed  by  you  in  charge  of  the  Entomological  Division. 
The  printing  of  a  report  upon  the  investigation  had  just  been  ordered. 
Two  months  of  the  fiscal  year  yet  remained  ;  and  my  first  step  was  to 
secure  the  appointment  of  Mr.  William  Trelease,  of  Brooklyn,  N".  Y.,  as 
a  special  agent.  Mr.  Trelease  was  instructed  to  proceed  to  the  cane- 
brake  region  of  Alabama,  in  order  to  make  and  report  observations  upon 
the  first  appearance  of  the  worms,  and  upon  several  points  respecting 
which  there  was  doubt. 

Upon  reviewing  the  material  which  was  at  hand  for  the  report  it  was 
found  to  consist  chiefly  of  biological,  statistical,  and  chronological  data  ; 
but  little  work  had  been  done  as  yet  upon  experiments  with  remedies, 
it  having  been  Professor  Kiley's  plan  to  leave  the  practical  part  of  the 
investigation  for  the  season  of  1879.  It  was  therefore  deemed  advisable 
that  Mr.  Trelease  should  be  kept  in  the  field  until  the  appearance  of  the 


8  REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

so-called  "third  crop"  of  tlie  worms,  in  order  that  some  efficient  work 
might  be  done  in  this  direction,  and  in  order  that  the  report  might  not 
be  lacking  in  so  important  a  particular. 

Mr.  Trelease,  therefore,  remained  in  Dallas  County,  Alabama,  through 
the  summer,  confirming  the  observations  of  the  agents  of  last  year,  and 
conducting  an  extensive  series  of  experiments.  He  was  recalled  to  this 
city  September  15. 

The  report  has  been  prepared  as  quickly  as  was  consistent  with  the 
other  labors  of  the  division.  Work  was  begun  upon  it  as  soon  as  I 
entered  upon  my  duties,  and  has  been  progressing  during  the  entire 
season. 

Although  a  great  part  of  the  investigation  was  conducted  under  the 
direction  of  my  distinguished  predecessor,  it  is  due  to  him,  as  well  as  to 
myself,  to  state  that  the  writer  alone  is  responsible  for  the  opinions  ex- 
pressed and  the  conclusions  drawn  in  the  body  of  this  report. 

I  take  pleasure  in  acknowledging  the  valuable  aid  rendered  by  the 
special  agents  and  local  observers  of  the  Entomological  Division,  whose 
names  have  already  been  given.  Their  special  reports  appear  in  Ap- 
pendix I  of  this  work.  An  extended  correspondence  has  been  carried 
on  with  each  of  these  gentlemen,  and  much  valuable  data  thus  obtained 
which  does  not  appear  in  their  reports. 

Other  correspondents  of  the  Department  have  rendered  important 
assistance,  especially  in  the  form  of  replies  to  the  circular  already 
quoted.  The  information  thus  obtained  has  been  classified  and  forms 
Appendix  II  of  this  work.  The  names  of  these  correspondents  are  given 
in  Appendix  III. 

It  is  not  possible  to  give  here  full  credit  for  the  numerous  favors  and 
courtesies  received  from  the  people  of  the  South  by  those  connected 
wi.th  this  investigation.  Wherever  we  went  we  were  received  with  the 
utmost  hospitality ;  and  all  seemed  anxious  to  facilitate  our  researches. 

I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  H.  A.  Hagen  and  Dr.  D.  L.  Phares  for  important 
bibliographical  references ;  to  Mr.  Edmund  Burgess  for  determinations 
of  Diptera;  to  Eev.  H.  C.  McCook  for  the  descriptions  of  ants  and 
notes  on  their  habits,  given  at  the  close  of  Chapter  VI;  to  Dr.  P.  E. 
Hoy  for  information  respecting  the  occurrence  of  Aletia  argillacca  in 
Wisconsin ;  to  the  Charleston  Library  Society  for  the  loan  of  books ;  to 
Mr.  E.  T.  Cresson  for  determination  of  Hymenoptera;  to  Prof.  F.  H. 
King  and  Dr.  Elliott  Coues  for  information  respecting  the  English  spar- 
row, to  Mr.  Eobert  Eidgway  for  a  list  of  the  insectivorous  birds  of  the 
South;  and  to  Prof.  C.V.  Eiley  for  determinations  of  parasites  of  Aletia 
argillacea. 

The  original  drawings  of  insects  have  been  made  from  nature,  chiefly 
by  Mr.  G.  Marx;  a  few  were  drawn  by  Mr.  Tli.  Pergande,  who  also  ren- 
dered valuable  assistance  in  making  biological  observations  on  the  in- 
sects bred  in  my  office.  Assistance  was  rendered  by  Mr.  C.  E.  Dodge 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.  9 

in  the  preparations  of  the  sections  referring  to  statistics  of  losses  and 
to  winds. 

I  wish  to  acknowledge,  especially,  the  efficient  assistance  of  Mr.  L.  O. 
Howard,  who  has  aided  me  during  the  preparation  of  the  entire  report. 
I  am,  sir,  with  much  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  HENRY  COMSTOCK, 

Entomologist. 
Hon.  WM.  G.  LE  Due, 

Commissioner  of  Agriculture. 


Plate  I 


Till-;  COTTON  \VOU\1  . 

i-yill.-ici-.-i  ,n,,. ,, 


THE   COTTON-WORM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

CLASSIFICATION  AND  NOMENCLATURE. 

In  glancing  over  the  literature  on  the  insect  under  consideration  we 
find  that  it  is  known  by  various  popular  titles.  The  "  Chenille "  is  a 
name  which  still  holds  in  many  parts  of  the  South.  It  was  originally 
introduced  by  the  French  planters  emigrating  from  Martinique  and 
other  French  West  Indies  to  Georgia  in  1801-1802,  and  also  by  the 
French  settlers  of  Louisiana.  Although  literally  signifying  nothing  but 
caterpillar,  it  has  come  to  be  applied  to  this  insect  distinctively,  as  the 
caterpillar  par  excellence.  The  "  Army- worm  "  is  a  title  which  has  of^en 
been  applied  to  this  insect,  but  is  one  which  should  be  avoided  on  ac- 
count of  the  danger  of  Confounding  it  with  the  Army -worm  of  the  North. 

In  order  to  avoid  this  danger  many  have  called  it  the  "  cotton  army- 
worm."  Mr.  Glover  has  given  his  sanction  to  this  name  in  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  reports.  It  has  also  been  called  by  many  writers 
"  the  cotton-caterpillar,"  a  name  sufficiently  distinctive.  By  many  it  is 
known  by  the  simple  term  "the  caterpillar"  in  contradistinction  to  "the 
worm"  as  commonly  applied  to  the  boll- worm.  By  others,  and  these 
are  by  far  the  majority,  it  is  termed  "the  cotton- worm."  This  latter 
name  we  shall  adopt  in  this  report  as  being  the  shortest  and  simplest 
and  best  adapted  for  a  popular  name.  The  moth  has  generally  been 
called  the  "cotton-fly"  or  "cotton-moth"  or  "  cotton- worm  moth." 

And  now,  briefly,  as  to  the  scientific  classification  of  the  cotton- worm 
moth.  Primarily  it  belongs  to  the  order  "  LEPIDOPTEEA  "  or  scaly- 
winged  insects.  All  Lepidoptera  are  characterized  by  having  four  mem- 
branous wings  covered  with  imbricated  scales  (appearing  to  the  naked 
eye  as  the  so-called  "  dust "  of  a  butterfly's  wing)  and  by  having  the 
mouth  parts  formed  for  sucking,  the  maxillae  forming  a  tube  of  greater 
or  less  length.  The  order  of  Lepidoptera  is  divided  into  two  sections — 
Rhopalocera  (including  all  butterflies)  and  Heterocera  (including  all 
moths.)  The  Heteroceres  are  subdivided  into  the  following  families : 

1.  Sphingidae. — Hawk-moths  or  humming-bird  moths. 

2.  ^geriadae. — Clear- winged  moths. 

3.  Zygaenidae. — A  family  to  which  no  popular  name  has  been  given. 

4.  Bombycidae. — Spinners. 

5.  Noctuidae. — Owlet-moths. 

11 

0 


12  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

6.  Geometridae.— Measuring- worm  moths. 

7.  PyraUdae. — Snout-moths. 

8.  Tortricidae. — Leaf  rollers. 

9.  Tineidae. — Leaf  miners. 

10.  Pteroplioridae. — Plume  moths. 

Family  5 — the  Noctuidae — is  characterized  by  having  the  body  ro- 
bust, the  antennae  almost  constantly  simple,  the  thorax  stout  and  often 
crested,  the  mouth  parts  well  developed,  the  spiral  tongue  being  greatly 
elongated.  The  wings  in  repose  are  ordinarily  deflexed  at  the  sides  of 
the  body,  and  the  abdomen  is  of  an  elongate  conical  form. 

Mr.  Grote  in  his  "List  of  the  Noctuidae  of  North  America"*  places 
all  North  American  Noctnids  in  the  three  tribes,  Bombyeiae,  NoCtuae, 
and  Noctuo-Phalcenidi,  Noctuae  containing  the  bulk  of  the  family,  Bom- 
tyciae  and  Noctuo-Phalcenidi  simply  the  forms  osculating  with  the  pre- 
ceeding  and  succeeding  families.  To  this  tribe  Noctuae  belong  many  very 
injurious  insects  in  addition  to  the  cotton- worm.  All  of  the  cut- worms,  so 
destructive  to  many  crops,  the  boll- worm,  the  army-worm  o  the  North, 
the  "grass-worm"  and  many  others  of  lesser  importance,  the  wheat- 
head  army- worm,  the  corn  and  potato  stalk  borers  (Gortyna),  and  others. 
T6  the  genus  Aletia  of  this  tribe  Noctuae,  the  cotton-worm  moth  be- 
longs, and  it  is  known  by  the  specific  name  of  argillacea. 

The  history  of  the  synonymy  of  Aletia  is  interesting.  On  January 
1, 1827,  Dr.  C.  W.  Capers,  who  had  been  making  a  study  of  the  cotton- 
worm,  sent  specimens  for  identification  to  Thomas  Say,  then  Professor 
of  Natural  History  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  Mr.  Say  an- 
swered :  . 

I  have  carefully  examined  the  contents  of  the  box  which  accompanied  your  letter. 
It  contained  several  cotton-moths  which  are  much  injured,  but  as  far  as  I  am  enabled 
to  judge  by  their  remaining  characters,  they  constitute  a  new  species,  of  which  I  have 
made  the  following  description.! 

NOCTUA  Fabr. 

N.  XYLINA. — Olivaceous,  tinged  with  vinaceous ;  superior  wings  with  a  black  spot. 

Description. — Head  vinaceous,  with  a  small  whitish  tuft  before;  antenna'  palo 
honey-yellow,  of  moderate  length,  covered  with  scales  above  and  short  hair  beneath ; 
labrum  rounded,  small ;  mandibles  conic,  whitish,  with  a  fascicle  of  sericeous  fulvous 
hair  on  the  inner  base;  maxillae  as  long  as  the  antennae,  papillaceous  towards  tin  tip  : 
palpi  densely  covered  with  short  equal  scales,  which  are  intermixed  rufous  and  white ; 
second  joint  much  longer  than  the  first ;  third  joint  very  distinct,  conic,  linear ;  thorax 
vinaceous  with  more  or  less  of  olivaceous,  particularly  on  the  sides;  superior  wings 
vinaceous,  towards  the  posterior  margin  obsoletely  olivaceous;  a  little  above  and 
partly  on  the  second  bifurcation  of  the  post  costal  nervure  is  an  oblique  sub-oval, 
blackish  spot,  in  which  are  paler  scales,  forming  almost  a  double  pupil ;  posterior  to 
this  spot  is  an  obsolete,  much-undulated,  interrupted,  dull  rufous  line,  reaching  the 
anal  margin  near  the  middle  and  the  costal  margin  at  two-thirds  the  distance  from 
the  humcrus;  behind  this  line  is  a  distinct  one,  and  in  some  specimens  a  still  less  dis- 
tinct one  toward  the  base  of  the  wing,  accompanied  by  a  small  spot ;  inferior  wings 

"Bull.  BuC  Soc.  Nat.  Sci.  1875. 
t  Say's  Entomology  of  N.  A.  Ed.,  Le  Conte,  I.     370. 
I 


SYNONYMY.  13 

on  the  inferior  page,  with  a  slight,  slender,  rufous  baud ;  anterior  tibiae  with  a  spine ; 
posterior'tibi;c  with  spines  on  the  middle  and  tip ;  claws  distinct,  emarginate  beneath. 

Length  to  tip  of  superior  wings  nine-tenths  of  an  inch. 

Larva  sixteen-footed,  spotted ;  eyes  spotted ;  beneath  immaculate,  simple.  Pupa 
simple,  dark  chestnut  or  blackish ;  three  of  the  abdominal  segments  with  dilated 
rufous,  posterior  margins. 

In  the  above  description,  if  any  errors  occur  as  regards  color,  you  can  rectify  them 
from  more  recent  and  perfect  specimens. 

Considering  that  the  specimens  received  were  badly  rubbed,  this 
description  is  a  very  accurate  one. 

In  1846,  Mr.  T.  Affleck,  of  Washington,  Adams  County,  Mississippi, 
sent  Harris,  the  great  New  England  Entomologist,  specimens  of  the  moth 
for  identification.  Harris  was  in  doubt,  and  wrote  Doubleday,  the  Eng- 
lish Lepidopterist,  on  the  subject,  as  follows:*' 

Probably  you  have  heard  of  the  "army-worm,"  a  caterpillar  that  invades  the  cot- 
ton fields  of  the  Southern  States,  and  has  this  year  destroyed  at  least  one-third  of  the 
crop  in  Louisiana  and  Mississippi.  Several  communications  have  been  made  to  me 
respecting  it,  and  a  correspondent  in  Mississippi  having,  as  he  states,  profited  by  my 
book  on  destructive  insects,  so  far  as  to  be  able  to  trace  the  transformation  of  the  army- 
worm  has  recently  sent  to  me  in  a  letter  some  specimens  of  the  moth  developed  from 
this  worm  or  caterpillar,  with  a  description  of  the  caterpillar.  The  moth  was  new  to  my 
collection,  and,  though  a  good  deal  injured  in  transmission,  is  yet  in  such  a  state  that 
the  genus  might  be  made  out  by  one  familiar  with  the  modern  genera.  From  the  habits 
of  the  larva  it  seems  to  me  that  the  insect  must  approach  near  to  the  genus  Cosmia. 
t  *  *  Mr.  Say  described  the  moth  from  very  bad  specimens  under  the  name  of  Noc- 
tua  xylina.  I  have  been  requested  to  redescribe  it  correctly,  and  wish  to  give  to  it  the 
name  of  the  modern  genus  to  which  it  may  belong. 

Mr.  Doubleday,  in  his  answer  (April  2, 1847),  said  :t  "  Your  cotton-moth 
is  near  to  Ophiusa,  but  is  a  new  genus.  We  have  nothing  exactly  the 
same.  I  have  searched  through  Abbott's  drawings  and  cannot  find  it.'' 
He  also  expressed  the  same  opinion  in  a  meeting  of  the  London  Ento- 
mological Society  of  nearly  the  same  date.J 

Harris  never  redescribed  the  insect,  but,  after  receiving  Doubleday's 
letter,  wrote  to  Mr.  Affleck  : 

The  cotton-moth  will  prove  to  be  the  type  of  a  new  or  undetermined  genus.  Fabri- 
cius  describes  an  entirely  different  insect  under  the  name  of  Noctua  gossypii.  Say  gives  a 
pretty  good  description  of  the  true  cotton-moth,  styling  it  Noctua  xylina;  which  was  a 
good  and  proper  name  for  the  insect,  as  the  subject  was  understood  by  Mr.  Say,  who 
did  not  pretend  to  know  much  about  the  Lepidoptera.  Ophima  xylina  better  accords 
with  the  present  state  of  the  science.  § 

Mr.  B.  C.  L.  Wailes,  former  State  geologist  of  Mississippi,  and  corre- 
sponding member  of  the  Boston  Society  of  Natural  History,  has  pub- 
lished an  account  of  the  cotton-worm, ||  in  which  he  speaks  of  it  by  the 
scientific  name  of  Depressaria  gossypioides.  As  this  error  of  Mr.  Wailes 
has  misled  many,  it  is  worthy  of  mention  here.  The  principal  insect 

*  Entomological  papers  of  T.  W.  Harris,  Boston,  1869,  p.  169. 

t  Ibid.,  p.  173f 

t  Trans.  Eut.  Soc.,  London,  1848,  Proc.  33. 

§  Affleck's  Southern  Almanac,  1851,  p.  49. 

||  Agriculture  and  Geology  of  Miss.,  1854,  pp.  146-148. 


14  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

enemy  to  cotton  culture  in  India  has  been  named  by  Mr.  Saunders  De- 
pressaria  gossypiella.*  This  insect  is  a  Tineid  moth,  the  larva  of  which 
bores  into  the  forming  cotton  seed.  Mr.  Wailes  had  evidently  either 
seen  the  name  attached  to  an  insufficient  description  or  had  ignored  the 
description  entirely,  presupposing  its  identity  with  our  cotton-worm 
moth  from  its  similar  powers  of  destruction. 

In  1864  Mr.  A.  R.  Grote,  having  carefully  compared  the  descriptions  of 
Guene"e's  Anomis  Mpunctina  t  and  Say's  Noctua  aeylina,  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  they  were  synonymous.  |  Say's  specific  name  having  the 
priority,  bipunctina  fell  to  the  ground,  while  the  more  modern  genus 
Anomis  of  Huebner  took  the  place  of  the  Fabrician  genus  Noctua,  and 
the  cotton-moth  was  for  some  ten  years  or  more  known  as  Anomis  xylina 
Say. 

In  1874  Mr.  Grote  discovered  that  Hiibner  had  in  1822  §  described  and 
figured  the  cotton-moth  under  the  name  of  Aletia  argillacea;  and,  as 
Mr.  Grote  had  in  the  mean  time  made  himself  familiar  with  the  type  of 
the  genus  Anomis  (A.  erosa  Hiibn.)  and  found  it  to  differ  "  structurally 
and  generically  from  the  cotton-worm  moth,"  he  decided  that  Hiibner's 
combined  name  should  hold  in  the  future,  and  accordingly  introduced  it 
into  his  "List  of  the  Noctuida?  of  North  America,"  1874.  Mr.  Grote  also 
announced  this  conclusion  in  a  paper  read  before  the  Hartford  meeting 
of  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science.  ||  We 
shall  in  this  report  follow  the  highest  American  authority  on  the  group  ; 
but  to  show  the  doubt  that  may  still  exist  as  to  the  identity  of  Anomis 
xylina  and  Aletia  argillacea,  and  as  a  matter  of  curiosity,  we  quote  the 
original  description  of  the  cotton-moth  5  it  will  also  serve  as  a  specimen 
of  Huebnerian  workmanship. 


200. 


ALETIA  ARGILLACEA. 

Aus  Bahia.  Vom  Herrn  Sommer  abgelassen.  Eine  Noctua  genuma  and  Hcttophila 
lineata.  Sie  ist  der  A.  Vitellina^  sehr  ahnlich,  hat  aber  in  nichts  eine  Glcichheit  mit 
ihr  und  auf  den  Schwingen  einen  weissen  Punct.  Ihre  Abildung,  399,  400  stellt  ein 
mdnnliches  muster  vor.** 

Figures  399  and  400  are  very  highly-colored  representations  of  what 
may,  by  a  stretch  of  the  imagination,  be  called  the  cotton-  worm  moth. 
The  figure  of  A.  vitellina  represents  a  moth  with  reddish-brown  prima- 
ries, with  a  reniform  spot  on  each,  and  uncolored  secondaries. 

•Trans.  But.  Soc.,  London,  1843,  vi,  p.  284. 

tNoctuelites,  vol.  II,  p.  401  (1852). 

tProc.  Ent.  Soc.  Phil.  Ill  (1864),  p.  541. 

$  Zntriige  znr  Sammlung  Exotischer  Schmettlinge  2e«  Hund.  200  pi.,  399. 

||  Proc.  A.  A.  A.  S.  vol.  23,  part  II,  p.  13  (1874.) 

f  HUbn.  Noc.,  379,  Vitellina. 

•  *  Tim  may  be  very  freely  translated  :  '  '  From  Bahia.  Left  by  Mr.  Sommer.  A  true 
noctuid,  and  a  specimen  of  Heliophila  lineata.  It  is  very  like  A.  Vitellina,  except  that 
it  has  a  white  dot  on  the  wings.  Figs.  399  and  400  represent  the  male." 


SYNONYMY.  15 

The  synonymy  of  the  cotton-moth  then  remains  as  follows : 
Aletia  argillacea,  Httbner,  Zutr.  zu  Sam.  Exot.  Schmet.  2es  Hund.,  p.  32.  n.  200,  figs. 

399,  400. 
Noctua  xylina,  Say.     Correspondence  relative  to  the  insect  that  destroys  the  Cotton 

Plant.    New  Harmony  Disseminator,  1830. 
Anomfe  grandipuncta,  Gueue"e,  Noctue"lites,  vol.  2,  p.  400  (1852). 
Anomis  Mpunctina,  Guene"e,  Noctuelites,  vol.  2,  p.  401,  id.,  vol.  3,  p.  397  (1852). 
Anomis  xylina,  Grote,  Proc.  Ent.  Soc.  Phil.,  vol.  3,  p.  541,  1864. 
Aletia  argillacea,  Hiibn.,  Grote,  List  Noctuidaj  of  North  America,  p,  24,  1874. 


16  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


CHAPTER    II. 
PAST  HISTORY  OF  THE  COTTON-WORM. 

The  materials  for  the  early  history  of  the  cotton- worm  and  its  ravages 
are  scanty  enough.  The  literature,  as  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  the 
bibliographical  list,  has  been  far  from  extensive,  and,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  subject,  so  utilitarian  in  its  character  that  all  points  not 
relating  directly  to  remedy  have  been  looked  upon  as  useless.  This, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  of  the  recentness  of  all  papers  of  value, 
offers  but  a  poor  outlook  for  an  exhaustive  history  of  the  cotton-worm  of 
long  ago.  Yet  such  material  has  not  been  entirely  wanting.  Scraps  from 
this  place  and  scraps  from  that,  when  patched  together,  have  made  a  tissue 
containing  many  tangible  points  of  information,  and  afford  a  fair  running 
account  of  the  earlier  appearances  of  Aletia.  As  we  near  the  present 
date,  however,  our  sources  of  information  become  more  varied,  and  the 
information  itself  more  accurate,  until  for  the  last  fifteen  years  the  ma- 
terial for  a  nearly  complete  chronology  is  at  hand.  The  main  sources  of 
information  have  been  three  in  number:  First,  what  the  literature  con- 
tains upon  this  point;  second,  the  answers  of  correspondents  to  ques- 
tions 1,  la,  16,  and  3  of  the  1878  circular  letter  (see  introduction) ;  third, 
the  regular  monthly  reports  of  the  statistical  correspondents  of  this  de- 
partment upon  the  condition  of  crops,  as  contained  in  the  "Monthly  Re- 
ports of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,"  from  1866  to  1876,  inclusive, 
and  in  the  occasional  bulletins  of  the  department  since  1876. 

The  first  important  point  to  be  cleared  up  in  the  history  of  the  cotton- 
worm  is,  whether  it  is  really  indigenous  to  this  country  or  whether  it 
has  been  introduced  from  abroad.  On  this  point  Mr.  Grote  has  the  fol- 
lowing :  * 

Now  Hiibner  describes  the  moth  of  the  cotton-worm  at  first  as  from  Baliia.  Suffi- 
cient testimony  as  to  the  indentity  of  our  insect  with  one  destructive  to  the  West 
Indian,  Mexican,  and  Brazilian  perennial  cotton  is  at  hand,  and  the  fact  is  established. 
In  a  classificatory  point  of  view  the  affinities  of  the  cotton-worm  are  with  Southern 
rather  than  with  Northern  forms  of  its  family,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out. 

So  far  as  the  past  history  goes,  it  upholds  Mr.  Grote  in  the  belief  that 
Aletia  is  really  an  indigene  of  South  America  and  the  West  Indies,  and 
creates  a  probability  that  its  spread  in  this  country  was  originally  the 
result  of  an  accidental  introduction  or  of  immigration  on  the  part  of  the 
moth.  Were  the  insect  indigenous  to  this  country  its  history  would  be 
coeval  with  the  history  of  cotton  culture  within  the  present  limits  of  the 
United  States,  but,  upon  referring  to  the  records,  we  find  that  this  is 
not  so.  Short  staple  cotton  was  grown  quite  extensively  as  a  garden 

*Proc.  A.  A.  A.  S.  XXIII  (1874),  Part  II,  p.  If,. 


IS    THE    COTTON    WORM   INDIGENOUS?  17 

crop  iii  Maryland,  Virginia,  the  Carolinas,  and  Georgia  for  many  years 
previous  to  the  Revolution.  In  a  "  History  of  Virginia,  by  a  Native  and 
Inhabitant  of  the  Place,"  published  in  1722,  we  find  that  cotton  was 
grown  in  that  colony  at  least  130  years  before  the  Revolution.  In  Car- 
roll's Historical  Collections  of  South  Carolina  many  references  are  made 
to  the  early  culture  of  cotton.  The  writer  of  a  pamphlet  on  UA  Brief 
Description  of  the  Province  of  Carolina  and  the  Coast  of  Florida," 
published  in  1666,  mentions  the  fact  that  at  the  Cape  Fear  settlements 
they  grew  "indico,  tobacco,  very  good,  and  catton-wwl."  In  the  same 
collection  is  found  Dr.  Hewitt's  early  account  of  Georgia  and  South 
Carolina,  in  which  he  alludes  to  cotton  particularly,  and  describes  the 
method  of  planting. 

He  says  that  cotton,  "  though  not  of  importance  enough  to  have  occu- 
pied the  whole  attention  of  the  colonists,  might,  nevertheless,  in  con- 
junction with  other  staples,  have  been  rendered  profitable  and  useful." 

"In  Wilson's  account  of  the  'Province  of  Carolina  in  America,'  pub- 
lished in  1682,  it  is  stated  that l  cotton  of  the  Cyprus  and  Malta  sort 
grows  well  and  a  good  plenty  of  the  seed  is  sent  thither.'  In  Peter 
Parry's  description  of  the  Province  of  Carolina,  drawn  up  in  Charleston 
in  1731, '  flax  and  cotton'  are  said  to  '  thrive  admirably.'"  *  Cotton  began 
to  be  exported  toward  the  middle  of  the  18th  century.  In  1748  Charles- 
town  exported  7  bags  of  cotton- wool,  and  in  1754  an  additional  quantity 
was  shipped.  Various  quantities  were  exported  up  to  the  time  of  th§ 
Revolution,  and  during  the  war  for  Independence  much  of  the  country 
was  supplied  with  home-grown,  home-manufactured  cotton  cloths.  In- 
stances could  be  multiplied  without  number,  but  are  unnecessary  to  our 
purpose.  In  1786  the  celebrated  Sea  Island  cotton  was  introduced  into 
Georgia  from  the  Bahamas  (Long  Island  and  Exuma),  to  which  place 
it  had  been  brought  in  1785  from  Anguilla,  an  island  in  the  Carib  Sea,t 
and  this  seems  to  have  been  the  point  from  which  the  first  great  exten- 
sion of  the  cultivation  of  cotton  in  America  dates. 

The  first  appearance  of  the  cotton-worm  in  this  country  now  on 
record  was  in  1793  in  Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  after  cotton  had  been 
grown  for  150  years.  This  certainly  would  seem  to  indicate  the  intro- 
duction of  the  worm  at  that  time  or  shortly  previous. 

In  Louisiana  and  Mississippi  the  evidence  on  this  point  seems  to  be 
more  conclusive  j  for,  if  the  testimony  of  the  early  navigators  is  to  be 
believed,  cotton  is  indigenous  around  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi.  J 

The  plant  was  probably  first  cultivated  by  the  early  French  colonists 

*  Memoir  on  the  Cotton  Plant.     W.  E.  Seabrook.     Charleston,  1844. 

t  Ure's  Hist,  of  Cotton  Manufacture,  I,  150. 

|  "Even  as  far  north  as  the  Meschacebe,  or  Mississippi,  the  early  explorers  of  that 
river  and  its  tributary  streams  saw  'cotton  growing  wild  in  the  codd,  and  in  great 
plenty.'" — Seabrook's  Memoir,  p.  5. 

Respecting  this  statement  of  Seabrook's,  however,  Dr.  Asa  Gray  writes:  "I  know 
of  no  authority  whatever  for  indigenous  Gossyp'mm  on  the  Mississippi,  nor  for  its  cul- 
ture there  before  European  settlement.  I  doubt  if  there  is  any." 

2  c  I 


18  REPORT    UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 

from  Santo  Domingo.  "  Charlevoix,  on  his  visit  to  Natchez,  in  1722,  saw 
the  cotton  plant  growing  in  the  garden  of  Sieur  Le  Noir,  the  company's 
clerk." 

"Bienville  states  in  one  of  his  dispatches,  dated  in  April,  1735,  that 
the  cultivation  of  cotton  proved  advantageous."  "  Governor  Yaudreuil, 
in  a  dispatch  dated  1746,  mentions  cotton  as  among  the  articles  received 
by  the  boats  which  came  down  annually  from  Illinois  to  New  Orleans."* 

Cotton  having  been  cultivated  as  early  as  this,  it  seems  strange  that  we 
never  hear  of  an  appearance  of  the  cotton-worm  before  1804  in  that  sec- 
tion of  the  country.  Yet  that  is  absolutely  the  first  reliable  date  that 
we  have  been  able  to  find,  and  it  certainly  would  seem  to  argue  a  recent 
introduction  of  the  worm. 

The  insufficiency  and  unreliability  of  the  records  may  be  urged  against 
such  argument  as  this,  and  with  some  degree  of  justice ;  still  it  would 
seem  as  if  so  formidable  an  enemy  to  the  plant  would  be  mentioned 
whenever  the  culture  of  cotton  was  spoken  of. 

As  to  the  absolute  identity  of  the  insect  which  ravaged  the  cotton 
fields  of  Guiana  and  the  West  Indies  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth 
century  with  our  North  American  cotton-worm,  there  can  be  little 
doubt.  The  only  point  making  it  at  all  uncertain  is  Fabricius'  descrip- 
tion of  a  cotton-moth  (Noctua  gossypii)  from  South  America;  the  habits 
of  which  are  similar  to  those  of  Aletia,  and  yet  which  is  a  different 
insect  entirely,  according  to  the  description.t  Yet,  all  things  consid- 
ered, we  may  safely  conclude  that  Fabricius'  insect,  although  alike  in 
habits, is  not  the  important  southern  "Chenille." 

In  a  queer  old  article  published  in  Brewster's  Edinburgh  Encyclope- 
dia, Dr.  Chisolm,  of  Clifton,  who  had  studied  the  chenille  in  Guiana  in 
1801  and  1802,  gives  the  following  description  of  the  insect  in  all  its 
stages : 

Phalaena  geomotra  seticomis  alia  omnibus  sub-griseia  sub-angulatis  deflexis. 

Larva  subpiloaa  aetulis  nigris  interpositis :  12  poda,  20-annulatu,  clorso  uigro  nitido, 
linea  dorsali,  liueolis  gcminis  lateralibus  flaveaceutbus  albis;  abdomine  alba  flave- 
scente. 

Pupa  obtecta,  subovalia,  fuaca  nigricens,  coriacea. 

Habitat  in  Guiana,  Gossypii  variis,  forsan  omnibus  speciebus,  quarum  folia,  petioles 
fructusque  etiam  immeturos  mira  diraqne  voracitate,  devorat. 

'Wailcs  A«;ric.  (if.,],  of  Mis.s.,  l*->4,  i>7741. 

t Fabricius'  description  is  aa  follows:  • 

No.  286.    Noctua  gowypii. 

Cristata  alis  deflexis  fusco  cinereoque  variis:  posticis  hyalinis  immaculatis. 

Habitat  in  America  meridionalis  Parthenis  hysterofero,  gossypis  polyphagci  folia 
caulesque  deatruent,  Dr.  Pflug.  Devoratur  a  meleagride  Gallapavone,  Dr.  V.  Rohr. 
Praecedenti  (which  is  Noctua  hwtrionica  from  East  Indies)  nimis  affiuis.  Antennas 
fiiscn-.  Thorax  lobo  antico  distincto,  postice  criatatua,  cinereo  fuscoque  variegatus. 
Abdomen  cineream.  AL.-  antk-M-  mox  magia  fuac;n,  mox  rnagis  cinerae  macula  coatati, 
oblonga,  fusca  versus  apicem.  Costa  albo  punctata.  Posticae  albo  hyaliurc  immacu- 
late. Tibiae  fnacre.  Larva  gregaria,  glabra,  fnaco  grisescens;  vitta  dorsali,  lata, 
fuaca,  qure  linea  flava,  macnlis  albis  intersecta,  includitur.  (The  next  species  is  N. 
Brassicaria  from  South  America,  stated  to  be  "nimis  praecedentibus  affinis.")— J-  C. 
Fabricius,  Entomologica  Syatematica,  vol.  iii,  part  2 ;  Hafuiae  1794,  pp.  9&-97. 


1705-1800.  19 

From  this  description,  incomplete  and  inaccurate  as  it  is,  our  cotton- 
worm  can  be  recognized ;  and  this,  taken  in  connection  with  Huebner's 
description  of  Aletia  as  from  Brazil,  and  with  Mr.  Grote's  testimony 
upon  this  point,  renders  the  identity  of  the  destructive  Northern  and 
Southern  insects  highly  probable,  to  say  the  least. 

And  now  to  our  account  of  the  ravages  of  the  chenille. 

The  early  explorers  of  the  West  Indies  found  cotton  growing  wild, 
and  the  first  settlers  began  its  cultivation.  We  learn  from  an  old  ac- 
count* that  early  in  the  last  century  the  cotton-cultivators  were  accus- 
tomed to  the  injuries  of  a  worm  which  appeared  in  great  numbers.  In 
Guiana  the  chenille  was  certainly  known  by  the  earliest  cultivators  of 
cotton  in  that  country  (1705  to  1752).  In  the  Bahamas  the  caterpillar 
was  also  destructive  from  the  first  cultivation  of  cotton.  1788,  however, 
so  far  exceeded  all  previous  years,  that  we  always  find  it  particularly  al- 
luded to.  In  this  year,  between  March  and  September,  no  less  that  280 
tons  of  cotton,  at  a  moderate  estimate,  were  devoured  by  this  worm.t 

In  1794  the  worms  were  again  very  abundant  and  the  crop  on  several 
of  the  islands  suffered  severely.  On  Acklin's  Island  two-thirds  of  the 
crop  was  lost,  and  this  was  also  the  approximate  loss  on  this  island  in 
1788.|  In  1801,  the  cotton-crop  having  failed  for  a  number  of  years,  a 
committee^  of  the  members  of  the  general  assembly  of  the  Bahamas  was 
appointed  to  draw  up  a  series  of  questions  inquiring  into  the  causes  of 
this  failure,  and  to  forward  them  to  the  most  intelligent  planters  on  the 
islands.  Mr.  McKinnon  says,  concerning  the  result  of  the  investigation : 
"Amongst  the  causes  assigned  for  the  severe  and  general  disappoint- 
ment, the  most  prominent  is  the  destruction  committed  by  those  most 
baneful  insects,  the  red  bug  and  the  chenille."  § 

In  1801  and  1802  there  was  an  emigration  of  French  cotton-planters 
from  Martinique  to  Southwest  Georgia  on  account  of  the  ravages  of  the 
caterpillar  in  the  West  Indies, ||  and  on  many  islands  the  cultivation  of 
cotton  was  entirely  stopped. 

The  first  recorded  appearance  of  the  cotton  worm  in  the  United  States 
was,  as  we  have  already  stated,  in  1793.  In  that  year  it  swept  the  cot- 
ton fields  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  doing  a  great  deal  of  damage, 
more  particularly  in  Georgia.  "In  that  year,"  says  Mr.  Spalding,  "the 
destruction  was  complete.  From  Major  Butler's  field  of  400  acres  only 
18  bags  were  made."  fl  In  1800  there  was  another  general  appearance  of 
the  worms,  and  in  that  year  the  crops  in  South  Carolina  suffered  equally 
with  those  in  Georgia.  Dr.  Phares  and  Dr.  Capers  state  that  this  was 
the  first  appearance  of  the  worm  in  South  Carolina,  but  we  have  the 

*  Winterbotham's  European  Settlements  in  West  Indies,  1795  ? 

tffist.  Civil  and  Commercial  of  the  West  Indies.  Bryan  Edwards,  Phila.  1805. 
Ill,  96. 

t  McKinnon's  Tour  through  the  West  Indies,  1802-1803. 

$  Ibid. 

||  See  Appendix  I,  report  of  A.  R.  Grote. 

^  Seabrook's  Memoir,  p.  42. 


20  REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

testimony  of  Mr.  J.  W.  Grace  and  the  evidence  of  a  strong  probability 
as  to  its  occurrence  there  in  1793. 

We  find  no  evidence  of  its  reappearance  again  until  1.804,  although  it 
must  have  been  seen  in  small  numbers.  1804  was  the  first  of  the  series 
of  three  great  caterpillar  years  (1825  and  1846  being  the  other  two), 
which  gave  rise  to  the  almost  universal  theory  that  the  greatest  ravages 
of  the  chenille  were  to  be  expected  every  twenty-one  years.  In  this  year 
it  swept  over  every  portion  of  the  cotton  belt,  which  at  that  time  com- 
prised a  fair  part  of  South  Carolina,  the  coast  and  southernmost  coun- 
ties of  Georgia,  the  country  for  some  distance  back  of  Mobile  Bay  in 
Alabama,  and  counties  of  Mississippi  and  Louisiana  along  the  great 
river.  Concerning  this  year  Dr.  Phares  has  the  following  in  his  lecture 
before  the  Woodville  Farmers'  Club,  May  4,  1809 : 

In  1804*the  cotton-worm  made  one  of  its  widest  and  most  devastating  invasions.  It 
was,  I  believe,  on  this  occasion  that  Father  St.  Pierre  was  most  earnestly  entreated  by 
his  simple-minded  parishioners  of  Louisiana  to  furnish  holy  water  with  which  to 
repel  "les  chenilles."  In  districts  further  north,  where  they  came  later,  they  were 
finally  exterminated  by  a  snow  storm. 

Between  1804  and  1825  there  were  no  general  incursions.  The  cater- 
pillar appeared  many  times,  but  in  limited  districts.  Perhaps  the  sever- 
est of  these  limited  appearances  was  in  1814  in  portions  of  Louisiana. 
Mr.  Winfree  says : *  "In  1814  or  thereabouts  they  ate  the  cotton  down 
to  the  ground  in  Iberville  Parish  in  June."  Dr.  Phares  remarks:  "In 
1814  perhaps  it  was  they  came  in  June  in  portions  of  Louisiana,  the 
plant  being  very  backward  in  consequence  of  a  very  cold  late  spring, 
they  ate  it  down  to  the  ground  so  that  not  a  lock  of  lint  was  matured 
nor  a  seed  saved." 

A  good  idea  of  the  destruction  in  1825,  the  second  of  the  general  in- 
vasions, is  again  to  be  gained  from  Dr.  Phares'  paper.  He  says : 

In  1825,  the  destruction  was  general  in  extent,  embracing  all  the  cotton  States;  the 
late  Mr.  Affleck  in  one  of  his  papers  asserting  that  the  destruction  was  "universal  and 
complete."  I  must  here  be  permitted  to  say  that  it  was  not  "  complete,"  as  I  most  dis- 
tinctly remember  and  know  I  saw  fields  in  which  many  bolls  were  fully  matured  and 
gathered  before  the  chenilles  injured  the  plant,  and  considerable  quantities  of  very 
superior  cotton  were  made.  This  was  the  first  year  that  I  saw  the  chenilles,  and  cir- 
cumstances so  impressed  me  that  my  recollections  of  their  appearance  are  more  vivid 
than  of  any  time  since. 

The  insect  was  again  destroyed  by  a  storm,  as  we  have  seen  happen  less  extensively 
several  times  since;  the  wind  and  rain  beating  them  down,  and  the  water  sweeping 
them  along  and  forming  immense  heaps  in  some  places. 

Mr.  Affleck's  phrase  "universal  and  complete"  was  certainly  used  with 
justice  so  far  as  a  great  part  of  the  cotton  belt  was  concerned  in  1S25. 
An  old  correspondent  in  Conecuh  County,  Alabama,  places  the  loss  this 
year  at  90  per  cent.,  while  Mr.  Fuller,  of  Edisto  Island,  South  Carolina, 
states  that  old  planters  informed  him  that  the  entire  crop  was  lost.  On 
the  other  hand,  Dr.  Capers  dismisses  this  year  with  the  remark,  "  In 
1825  they  were  spreading,  but  perished  again  by  a  storm." 
*  De  Bow's  Review,  1847,  vol.  iv,p.  251. 


HISTORY    OF    RAVAGES,    1826-1835.  21 

Dr.  Capers*  says  concerning  the  succeeding  year : 

In  1826  they  destroyed  the  crops.  The  first  notice  of  them  this  year  was  at  Saint 
Helena,  La.,  on  the  1st  of  August.  Soon  after  they  were  found  on  all  the  coast,  from 
New  Orleans  to  North  Carolina.  On  August  23  they  had  destroyed  almost  all  the  cot- 
ton leaves,  but  suddenly  they  left  the  plants,  though  not  for  the  purpose  of  webbing 
up,  as  many  were  young.! 

The  cause  of  their  sudden  disappearance  is  said  to  have  been  that  they  were  too 
much  exposed  to  the  powerful  effects  of  the  sun,  in  consequence  of  the  plants  being 
nearly  destitute  of  foliage,  and  not  protecting  them  from  its  direct  rays. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  Dr.  Capers  has  made  a  mistake  of  a  year,  and 
that  this  note  really  should  refer  to  the  year  1825,  as  a  diligent  search- 
ing of  records  shows  no  other  account  of  the  prevalence  of  the  cater- 
pillar in  1826.  This  is  the  most  natural  conclusion  to  arrive  at,  though 
it  may  simply  be  a  case  of  exaggeration. 

We  have  notes  of  the  appearance  of  the  worm,  without,  however,  much 
damage  resulting,  in  limited  localities  in  1828, 1829, 1833, 1834,  and  1836. 
Considerable  damage  was  done  in  Leon  County,  Florida,  and  the  sur- 
rounding counties  in  1830  ;  in  Southern  Alabama  in  1831,  and  again  in 
Northern  Florida  in  1832.  In  1834  the  worms  appeared  in  Texas  for 
the  first  time.  Mr.  G.  S.  Clark,  of  Heuipstead,  Waller  County,  writes : 
"In  1834  a  boat  load  of  cotton  seed  was  brought  from  New  Orleans,  and 
that  year  the  worms  made  their  first  appearance  and  destroyed  the  crop." 
In  1836  they  are  stated  to  have  been  very  destructive  in  Greene  County, 
Alabama.  According  to  Mr.  Grote,  Hon.  Kobert  Toombs  sold  his  plan- 
tation in  Southwest  Georgia  on  account  of  the  ravages  committed  by 
the  cotton- worm  in  Early  and  Clay  Counties  in  1835. 

In  1838,  the  injuries  were  more  general.  Dr.  Phares  says:  "They 
spread  over  a  large  portion  of  the  cotton  States  that  year,  doing  much 
damage  in  September  and  October. "  Colonel  Whituer,  speaking  for 
Leon  County,  Florida,  says  :  "  The  caterpillar  appeared  early  in  August. 
The  second  brood  stripped  the  plants  by  the  20th  of  September,  and 
were  so  numerous  that,  after  devouring  the  entire  foliage,  they  barked 
the  limbs  and  stalks  and  ate  out  bolls  nearly  grown. "  The  year  1830 
was  noted  neither  for  extended  ravages  nor  for  marked  devastations  in 
particular  localities. 

In  1840,  the  appearance  of  the  caterpillar  was  very  general,  extending 
north  into  Arkansas  and  South  Carolina.  In  most  cases  they  were  too 
late  to  do  severe  damage,  and  the  only  locality  which  suffered  much, 
appears  to  have  been  Northern  Florida.  Concerning  the  caterpillars 
this  year  in  Leon  County,  Florida,  Dr.  Capers  says :  "  They  came  out 
from  the  15th  to  the  20th  of  July,  and  by  the  6th  of  September  the 
plants  were  stripped  of  leaves  and  young  bolls,  so  that  the  entire  crop 
was  less  than  one-half  the  average  of  other  years. "  It  is  a  noticeable 
fact,  upon  viewing  the  past  ravages  of  the  caterpillar,  that  this  north- 
western tier  of  Florida  counties  has  never  been  exempt  since  1830  and 
*Dep.  of  Agr.  Ann.  Rept.  1855,  pp.  74,75. 


22  KEPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

that  it  has  suffered  more  in  proportion  to  its  size  and  the  amount  of  cot- 
ton grown  than  any  other  section  of  the  country. 

The  caterpillars  were  not  at  all  widespread  nor  were  their  ravages  re- 
markably severe  in  1841,  '42,  '43,  '44,  '45.  There  was  about  20  per  cent, 
loss  in  Madison  and  Leon  Counties,  Florida,  in  1841 ;  elsewhere  the 
worms  came  too  late  to  do  much  damage  except  by  depreciating  the 
quality  of  the  cotton  by  soiling  it  with  their  excrement.  Great  damage 
was  reported  from  this  source  in  West  Feliciaua  Parish,  Louisiana.  In 
1842,  although  the  worms  were  reported  from  parts  of  Texas,  Alabama, 
Florida,  and  Georgia,  but  little  injury  seems  to  have  been  done.  The 
same  can  be  said  for  1843,  except  that  in  this  year  the  caterpillars  were 
reported  from  South  Carolina,  and  that  the  combined  damages  from 
caterpillars  and  storms  is  reported  at  33  per  cent,  from  Leon  County, 
Florida.  In  1844,  they  appeared  early  in  Florida  (being  found  webbed 
July  13,  in  Leon  County)  and  along  the  coast  in  Matagorda  and  Brazoria 
Counties,  Texas.  The  marked  feature  of  the  year  1844  was  the  abun- 
dance of  the  caterpillars  in  certain  parishes  in  Louisiana.  East  and  West 
Feliciana,  East  Baton  Eouge,  Saint  Mary's,  Saint  Laudry,  Avoyelles, 
Kapides,  Concordia,  Ked  Eiver,  Jackson,  Madison,  and  Catahoula  all 
lost  more  or  less  of  the  crop.  A  few  short  newspaper  paragraphs  may 
not  come  amiss  in  showing  the  situation. 

The  Saint  Landry  Whig,  of  August,  1844,  says  : 

We  arc  truly  sorry  to  announce  that  the  cotton  crop  in  this  parish  is  lamentably 
cut  up.  The  caterpillar  is  making  sad  havoc.  We  learn  that  many  of  the  planters 
on  Bayou  Boauf  contemplate  abandoning  cotton  altogether  and  intend  planting  sugar- 
cane. The  cotton  crop  this  year  in  most  of  that  section  will  not  yield  half  the  usual 
quantity,  and  all  around  us  a  third  at  least  will  be  lost.  We  are  no  alarmists,  but 
speak  the  words  of  soberness  and  of  truth,  and  people  at  distance  may  rely  on  this 
statement. 

The  Eed  Kiver  Kepublican,  of  similar  date,  has  the  following : 

In  our  last  we  mentioned  the  appearance  of  the  dreaded  caterpillar  on  our  cotton 
fields.  We  have  since  received  information  from  the  country  that  puts  to  rest  all 
doubts.  The  real  insect,  so  destructive  in  other  years,  can  be  seen  on  almost  every 
plantation  in  the  parish.  Every  eifort  to  arrest  the  progress  of  the  destroyers  has 
been  in  vain.  They  approach  the  tender  plant  in  myriads  and  the  work  of  destruc- 
tion is  completed  in  a  short  time. 

The  Baton  Kouge  Advertiser  of  September  11,  1844,  says : 

Tin-  caterpillar  is  doing  immense  destruction  on  the  cotton  plantations  in  this  par- 
ish. Wherever  the  crop  is  late,  the  bolls  being  tender  and  new  "forms"  constanlly 
emerging,  the  yield  will  be  more  than  one-half  U»s  than  the  anticipated  crop.  This  is 
the  opinion  of  a  highly  respectable  planter  Avith  whom  we  have  had  conversation  on 
the  subject. 

In  the  Concordia  Intelligencer  of  like  date  we  find  the  following : 

THE  ARMY-WORM.— This  destructive  insect  to  the  hopes  of  the  planter  has  just  made 
its  appearance  in  terrible  quantities  throughout  the  State.  A  gentleman  just  from  the 
Opelousas  counties  informs  us  that  the  caterpillar  has  made  its  appearance,  in  that 
region  three  weeks  since.  Within  the  past  six  days  it  has  passed  over  the  broad  fields 
of  Concordia,  leaving  them  as  if  a  whitening  frost  had  blighted  them.  One-third  o1' 


HISTOEY    OF   EAVAGES,    1645.  23 

the  crop  at  least  in  this  region  lias  been  destroyed,  how  much  more  time  will  deter- 
mine. With  the  overflow  and  now  the  army-worm,  the  planter  has  but  a  slender 
prospect  of  being  remunerated  for  his  labor. 

The  Alexandria  Republican  for  August  31,  1844,  has  the  following  : 

A  visit  to  Bayou  Eeef  has  given  us  ocular  proof  of  the  fearful  ravages  of  the  dreaded 
caterpillar.  The  work  of  destruction  has  been  complete.  Scarcely  a  green  leaf  is  to  be 
seen  in  any  direction — the  plantations  resembling  rye-fields.  In  the  opinion  of  the 
best  informed,  the  yield  in  the  parish  will  not  be  more  than  one-third  of  the  average 
crop.  Bad  news,  but  true. 

In  other  cotton  States  the  destruction  was  not  to  be  compared  to  this, 
in  spite  of  the  newspaper  exaggeration  which  marks  it.  In  Mississippi 
the  damage  was  slight.  In  Alabama,  certain  localities  report  consider- 
able injury.  In  Monroe  County  the  worms  were  "  bad  in  sections."  In 
Clarke  County  they  were  very  destructive.  In  Greene  County  the  loss 
amounted  to  33  per  cent.  In  Georgia  and  Florida  the  loss  was  very 
slight. 

In  1845,  the  damage  was  greater  than  it  had  been  since  1838.  A 
curious  instance  is  mentioned  of  this  year  by  Mr.  E.  Richards,*  of  Cedar 
Key,  Ma.,  showing  the  migratory  power  of  the  moth : 

The  last  of  July,  1845,  these  caterpillars  made  their  appearance  in  a  small  field  of 
tliree  or  four  acres  of  sea-island  cotton,  planted  on  Way  Key,  as  an  experiment  to  see 
if  cotton  could  be  advantageously  cultivated  on  the  Keys,  no  other  cottou  having 
been  previously  planted  within  80  miles  of  them;  but  the  whole  crop  was  devoured. 
The  caterpillar  was  at  the  same  time  destroying  the  cotton  in  the  interior  of  the 
country. 

Mr.  Glover  remarked  concerning  this  statement — 

It  would  seem  to  prove  that  it  (the  cotton-moth)  is  migratory  in  its  habits,  as  there 
is  no  other  way  of  accounting  for  its  sudden  presence,  except  that,  having  previously 
existed  on  some  other  plant  or  weed,  it  had  left  it  for  food  more  congenial  to  its  taste, 
although  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  real  caterpillar  will  eat  nothing  but  cotton. 

This  being  the  year  preceding  the  graat  cotton-worm  year  of  1846,  it 
is  worth  our  while  to  look  at  it  more  carefully  than  at  others.  It  is  at 
the  head  of  an  ascending  scale  of  years,  beginning  with  1839.  Eacli  year, 
from  1839  to  1845,  the  destructions  were  gradually  increased.  As  more 
moths  hibernated,  the  more  caterpillars  there  were  the  ensuing  year. 
Throwing  parasitic  and  climatic  checks  aside,  the  tendency  would  be 
for  the  worms  to  increase  in  geometrical  proportion.  As  the  caterpillar 
increased,  however,  so,  naturally,  will  the  parasites ;  and  when  once, 
through  meteorological  reasons,  the  cotton-worms  receive  a  decided 
check,  the  parasites  will  be  in  a  position  to  reduce  their  numbers  to  a 
marked  degree.  This  being  the  case,  we  would  expect  to  see,  in  a  suc- 
cession of  favorable  years,  a  gradual  increase  in  the  ravages  of  the 
caterpillars,  until,  after  a  year  of  great  injury,  there  is  a  sudden  falling 
off — a  drop,  as  it  were — to  the  bottom  of  another  ascending  scale  of 
years.  This  succession  will,  of  course,  be  modified  by  many  circum- 
stances, but  the  tendency  will  always  be  the  same. 

The  year  1846  was  the  third  of  the  twenty-one-year  irruptions,  and 
*  Dept.  of  Agr. ,  Eept.  1855,  p.  74. 


24  REPORT    UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 

was  one  of  the  worst  years  we  have  ever  had.  The  caterpillars  ap- 
peared very  early  in  Texas,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  and  Florida,  earlier 
than  they  had  ever  before  been  observed.  In  Texas,  they  made  great 
havoc  in  the  coast  counties,  but  the  inland  counties  did  not  suffer  so 
much.  Walker,  however,  and  some  of  the  surrounding  counties,  lost 
from  50  to  60  per  cent,  of  the  crop.  In  Louisiana  and  Mississippi,  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Harris,*  the  caterpillars  destroyed,  on  the  average,  one- 
third  of  the  entire  crop.  The  state  of  things  in  Mississippi  was  well 
described  by  Mr.  Affleck,  writing,  September  9,  1846,  to  the  American 
Agriculturist.  Mr.  Affleck  says : 

The  caterpillar,  cotton-worm,  cotton-moth  (Noctna  xylina),  or  chenille  of  the  French 
West  Indies,  Guiana,  &c.,  has  utterly  blighted  the  hopes  of  the  cotton-planter  for  the 
present  year,  and  produced  most  anxious  fears  for  the  future.  I  have  heard  from  the 
greater  part  of  the  cotton-growing  region — the  news  is  all  alike — the  worm  has  de- 
stroyed the  crop.  I  have  no  idea  that  any  considerable  portion  of  any  State  will 
escape.  *  »  *  The  present  year  the  crop  is  unusually  backward,  at  least  four 
weeks  later  than  usual.  We  have  but  just  commenced  picking ;  usually  beginning 
about  the  last  week  in  July  or  the  first  week  in  August.  At  this  moment  every  field 
within  this  region  of  country,  say  south  of  Vicksburg,  is  stripped  of  everything  but 
the  stems,  the  larger  branches,  and  a  few  of  the  first  bolls,  already  too  hard  for  the 
the  worms'  power  of  mastication.  The  full-grown  bolls  not  yet  become  hard  are  com- 
pletely eaten  out,  a  circumstance  I  have  never  heard  of  but  once  before,  in  1825.  The 
fields  present  a  most  melancholy  appearance  ;  looking  from  the  bluff  at  Natches  across 
the  river  to  those  fine  plantations  back  of  Vidalia,  nothing  is  to  be  seen  but  the  brown 
withered  skeleton  of  the  plant. 

The  devastation  in  Alabama  equalled,  if  indeed  it  did  not  exceed,  that 
in  the  States  just  mentioned.  From  nearly  every  part  of  the  State  it 
is  reported  to  have  been  one  of  the  very  worst  years.  Our  correspond- 
ent in  Barbour  County  states  that,  when  the  leaf  supply  failed,  the  cat- 
erpillars fairly  ate  the  bark  off  the  plant,  a  thing  which  has  not  been 
done  since.  The  old  inhabitants  even  now  gauge  all  destructive  years 
by  the  standard  of  1846. 

In  Northern  Florida  the  damage  was  even  greater  than  usual.  I  quote 
from  Colonel  Whitner : 

It  was  found  webbed  up  on  the  7th  of  July.  The  second  brood  began  to  web  up  on 
the  26th  of  that  month,  and,  by  the  20th,  the  part*  of  the  field  in  which  the  worm 
was  first  seen  were  found  to  be  eaten  out,  and  the  fly,  the  worms  large  and  small,  ;uxl 
the  chrysalides  were  discovered  at  the  same  time,  a  state  of  things  never  before  ob- 
served. By  the  5th  of  September  the  damage  amounted  to  a  loss  of  more  than  one- 
half  of  the  crop. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  that  only  nineteen  days  elapsed  between  the 
spinning  up  of  two  successive  broods,  which  is  certainly  indicative  of  a 
very  quick  development.  The  confusion  of  broods  of  which  Colonel 
Whitner  speaks  has  always  been  noticeable  in  years  when  the  caterpil- 
lars have  been  at  all  abundant  since  that  time.  As  the  season  advances 
the  confusion  becomes  more  marked  until  we  have  them  as  eggs,  cater- 
pillars, chrysalides,  and  moths  at  one  and  the  same  time. 
*  Entomological  Correspondence,  p.  169. 


HISTORY    OF   RAVAGES,    1846.  25 

In  Georgia  the  ravages  were  as  great  as  elsewhere,  the  counties  along 
the  coast  and  those  of  the  southern  tier  suffering  the  most. 

South  Carolina  was  severely  afflicted.  Mr.  Fuller,  of  Edisto  Island, 
Colleton  County,  writes  as  follows :  * 

In  1846,  they  appeared  on  the  20th  of  July  (a  very  unusually  early  date),  and  by 
the  10th  of  September  I  suppose  there  was  scarcely  a  cotton  leaf  or  any  tender  por- 
tion of  the  plants  remaining,  and  the  worms  not  fully  grown,  deserted  the  ravaged  fields 
in  millions  in  search  of  food,  failing  to  find  which,  they  died  from  starvation.  The 
crop  in  this  island  was  about  40  per  cent,  of  an  average  one. 

Other  parts  of  South  Carolina  report  total  loss,  but  reports  of  this 
kind  are  always  to  be  taken  with  some  degree  of  allowance.  No  cater- 
pillars were  reported  north  of  the  State,  nor  were  any  reported  from 
Arkansas. 

So  severe  a  year  as  this  would  naturally  arouse  the  planters,  as  indeed 
it  did  arouse  them,  to  the  necessity  of  knowing  more  about  the  habits  of 
these  destructive  insects,  and  of  discovering  some  appropriate  remedy 
for  their  ravages.  Up  to  this  time  very  little  had  been  written  about 
the  chenille.  Thomas  Say  had  described  the  moth  scientifically  in  1827, 
but  had  no  opportunities  for  studying  its  habits.  Dr.  C.  W.  Capers,  Hon. 
W.  E.  Seabrook,  Mr.  Thomas  Affleck,  and  one  or  two  other  intelligent  men 
had  given  the  insect  some  attention,  and  had  published  more  or  less 
about  it;  but  all  of  their  accounts  were  somewhat  fallacious,  and  even 
had  they  been  perfect,  they  were  too  few  and  far  between  to  have  done 
much  good.t  . 

*Dept.  of  Agr.,  Ann.  Rept.,  1856,  p.  76. 

tMr.  Seabrook  gives  the  following  interesting  account  of  how  an  enterprising  South 
Carolina  farmer  saved  his  crop  in  1843  : 

"The  caterpillar  appeared  in  several  parts  of  the  field  of  John  Townsend,  of  Saint 
John's,  Colleton,  early  in  August  last.  The  plants  were  luxuriant  in  growth  and 
tender  in  weed  and  leaf,  and  the  weather,  being  warm  and  rather  moist,  was  altogether 
propitious  to  the  spread  and  multiplying  of  the  worms.  By  the  adoption  of  prompt  and 
vigorous  measures,  some  of  which  are  new,  and  a  rigid  perseverance  in  their  execution, 
his  crop  escaped  unscathed,  while'mauy  of  his  fellow-laborers  who  lacked  faith  in  any 
remedy  suffered  greatly.  In  the  attainment  of  his  purpose  the  means  resorted  to  by 
Mr.  Townsend  were  the  following : 

"1.  His  people  searched  for  and  killed  both  the  worm  and  the  chrysalis  of  the  first 
brood. 

"2.  On  the  appearance  of  the  second  brood  he  scattered  corn  over  the  field  fro  invite 
the  notice  of  the  birds,  and  while  they  depredated  on  the  worms  on  the  top  of  the 
stalks  and  their  upper  limbs,  the  turkeys  destroyed  the  enemy  on  the  lower  branches. 

"3.  When  in  the  aurelia  (chrysalis)  state  the  negroes  crushed  them  between  their 
fingers. 

"4.  Some  patches  of  cotton  where  the  caterpillars  Avere  very  thick  and  the  birds 
and  turkeys  could  not  get  access  to  them  were  destroyed. 

"5.  The  tops  of  the  plants  and  the  ends  of  all  the  tender  and  luxuriant  branches, 
where  the  eggs  of  the  butterfly  are  usually  deposited,  were  cut  oft'. 

"  By  these  means,  resolutely  pursued,  although  at  one  time  the  prospect  of  check- 
ing the  depredators  was  most  cheerless,  not  the  slightest  injury  to  the  field  was  sus- 
tained. The  experiment  cost  Mr.  Townsend  2i  acres  of  cotton,  about  15  bushels  of 


26  REPORT   UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 

The  1840  invasion  called  forth  a  great  many  newspaper  articles,  which 
failed,  unfortunately,  to  advance  the  sum-total  of  our  knowledge  to  any 
great  extent.  Specimens  were  sent  this  year  to  Harris,  but  he  was  un- 
able to  do  more  than  mere  classificatory  work  upon  them.  In  the  fall 
of  1840,  Mr.  Affleck,  in  the  letter  already  quoted  from,*  gave  the  first 
hint  at  the  migration  theory  which  has  recently  occupied  so  prominent 
a  place  in  all  researches  on  the  cotton- worm.  Early  in  1847  Dr.  Gor- 
ham,t  having  arrived  independently  at  the  conclusion  that  we  have  an 
influx  of  the  moths  every  year  from  more  southern  countries,  published 
a  paper  upon  the  subject.  In  this  paper  he  gives  the  first  notice  of  a 
parasite  upon  the  chenille,  and  draws  up  a  description  of  what  is  un- 
doubtedly Pimpla  conquisitor.  Mr.  Affleck  observed  this  parasite  two 
or  three  years  later,  and  figured  it  in  1851.  t  Dr.  Gorham's  article  excited 
a  real  interest.  It  was  reprinted  in  several  prominent  Southern  journals, 
and  was  answered  by  several  writers.  No  one  seemed,  however,  to  agree 
with  his  views  on  migration  until  the  theory  was  again  independently 
proposed  by  Dr.  W.  I.  Burnett  in  1854.§  Among  all  these  discursive 
writings  there  was,  however,  so  much  of  a  fallacious  nature  that  the 
good  which  they  accomplished  was  reduced  to  the  minimum. 

The  prevalence  of  parasites  towards  the  close  of  this  year  (1840)  is  a 
point  worthy  of  note.  Dr.  Gorham  came  to  the  conclusion  that  not  one 
of  the  last  brood  of  caterpillars  escaped  parisitism,  and  to  account  for 
their  appearance  the  ensuing  year  was  obliged  to  originate  his  migra- 
tion theory. 

In  spite  of  this  wonderful  abundance  of  parasites,  however,  the  worms 
were  on  hand  bright  and  early  in  the  summer  of  1847.  Their  first  ap- 
pearance was  simultaneous  in  Northern  Florida  and  Southern  Louisiana. 
They  appeared  early  over  a  large  part  of  the  cotton  belt,  and  were  found 
in  great  numbers  as  far  north  as  Southern  Arkansas ;  1847  was,  how- 
ever, in  nearly  every  cotton  State,  an  unfavorable  year  for  cotton,  on 
account  of  drought  with  an  occasional  heavy  storm.  The  same  causes 
which  affected  the  cotton  had  their  effect  also  upon  the  caterpillar,  and 
its  insect  enemies  were  enabled  to  get  the  upper  hand.  The  result  was, 
that,  instead  of  the  year  being  more  severe  than  1840,  as  it  at  first  bid 
fair  to  be,  it  was  a  marked  one  in  but  few  localities.  In  Florida,  where 
the  worms  were  first  seen  in  early  July,  the  damage  was  so  slight  as  to 
cause  a  return  of  "  no  injury."  The  principal  ravages  occurred  in  North- 
ern Louisiana  and  Southern  Arkansas.  Carroll  Parish,  Louisiana,  reports 
them  as  "  very  bad,"  and  Miller  County,  Arkansas,  reports  a  loss  of  two- 
corn,  and  the  work  of  all  his  people  for  about  fivedays.  This  gentleman  was  aroused 
to  unusual  action  by  the  reflection,  founded  on  analogical  reasoning,  that,  of  one  moth 
of  feeble  wing  and  tender  body,  which  a  vigilant  eye  might  discover  and  destroy,  the 
progeny  in  six  weeks  amounted  to  at  least  twenty  millions  of  worms."  (Figures  too 
high.) 

*  American  Agriculturist,  vol.  v,  p.  342. 

tDe  Bow's  Review,  III,  pp.  535-543. 

t  Southern  Rural  Almanac,  1851,  p.  50. 

$Proc.  Bost.  Soc.  Nat.  Hist.,  18'4,  vol.  iv,  pp.  316-319. 


HISTORY    OF    RAVAGES,    1813-1862.  27 

thirds  of  the  crop.  Local  injury  seems  to  have  been  done  in  Montgom- 
ery County,  Alabama,  and  in  Coffee  County,  Georgia,  to  a  considerable 
extent. 

From  1848  to  1860,  inclusive,  there  was  not  a  single  notable  worm 
year.  The  caterpillars  were  every  year  more  or  less  injurious  jn  limited 
districts,  but  not  a  single  general  invasion  took  place.  The  increase  in 
their  numbers  was  comparatively  slight,  and  frequent  unfavorable  years 
kept  them  Avell  subdued.  In  addition  to  this,  the  planters  had  worked 
into  a  clean  and  thorough  system  of  cultivation ;  there  was  no  waste  and 
no  rubbish,  and  such  a  method  has  always  proved  the  best  way  to  keep 
all  insect  pests  in  check. 

The  year  1848  seems  to  have  been  even  much  more  unfavorable  for  the 
caterpillars  than  was  1847.  We  have  them  reported  simply  from  the 
northwestern  part  of  Florida  and  from  the  canebrake  region  of  Alabama. 

In  1849,  they  were  found  over  »a  wider  extent  of  country.  Eastern 
Texas,  Central  Alabama,  Northern  Florida,  Southern  Georgia,  and  the 
southern  coast  of  South  Carolina  reported  their  presence  with  little  or 
no  damage.  Leon  County,  Florida,  is  the  only  locality  in  which  severe 
damage  was  done. 

In  1850  no  great  injury  was  done.  The  worms  appeared  in  parts  of 
Texas,  Alabama,  Florida,  South  Carolina,  and  for  the  first  time  in  Ten- 
nessee. 

In  1851  they  were  found  in  the  canebr.'ike  region  and  in  Northern- 
Florida.  The  correspondent  from  Gadsden  County  reports  "  clean  de 
vouring  "  for  this  year. 

In  1852  they  were  more  wide-spread  again  and  heavy  local  losses 
were  reported  from  Greene  County,  Alabama,  and.  Leon  County,  Florida. 
Other  localities  reported  no  material  damage.  On  the  South  Carolina 
coast  they  appeared  rather  earlier  than  usual,  but  little  harm  was  ac- 
complished. 

In  1853  they  again  appeared  in  Arkansas,  and  some  localities  in  Mis- 
sissippi were  more  than  usually  afflicted. 

In  1854  they  were  numerous  in  the  canebrake  region ;  1855  was  a  dry 
year,  and,  according  to  Dr.  Phares,  the  caterpillars  were  destroyed  by 
drought  and  heat ;  1856  was  a  year  of  remarkable  exemption ;  1857, 
1858,  and  1859  are  unworthy  of  remark  as  caterpillar  years ;  in  1860  they 
were  more  abundant  in  the  canebrake  and  in  parts  of  Texas  and  Mis- 
sissippi than  they  had  been  for  the  few  preceding  years. 

From  1861  to  1865,  inclusive,  the  cotton  crop  was  necessarily  greatly 
curtailed,  and  the  reports  of  the  activity  of  the  caterpillar  during  that 
period  could  hardly  be  expected  to  be  of  sufficient  accuracy  or  com- 
pleteness to  assist  in  studying  the  periodical  appearances.  Still  the  re- 
ports have  been  comparatively  full,  and  show  that  the  caterpillars  were 
present  over  all  the  more  southern  portions  of  the  cotton  belt  and  were 
increasing  in  numbers  every  year.  In  1861  and  1862,  although  they 
were  widespread,  their  ravages  were  reported  as  slight  from  every 


28  EEPOET    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

locality.  In  1863  they  did  considerable  damage  in  Austin  County  and 
the  surrounding  country  in  Texas.  In  the  latter  part  of  this  season 
they  were  found  as  far  north  as  Wayne  and  Halifax  Counties  in  North 
Carolina,  although  the  harm  that  they  did  was  very  slight.  In  1864 
they  were  reported  as  destructive  in  Jefferson  Parish,  Louisiana,  and  in 
Jefferson  County,  Mississippi.  They  reached  North  Carolina  again  this 
year,  and  were  reported  from  Edgecombe  County.  Eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-five  was  a  marked  year  in  parts  of  Texas,  in  Southern  Arkan- 
sas, and  all  through  Central  Alabama.  The  worms  were  again  seen  in 
Edgecombe  County  and  Halifax  County,  North  Carolina. 

From  1866  to  1877  we  are  enabled  to  chronicle  the  appearances  of  the 
caterpillars  with  much  more  certainty  than  in  previous  years.  During 
this  time  the  Department  of  Agriculture  published  regular  monthly  re- 
ports, giving,  among  other  things,  the  condition  of  the  different  crops 
as  sent  in  by  regular  correspondents  till  over  the  country.  Information 
given  at  the  time  of  the  ravages  is.  of  course,  more  reliable  than  that 
called  up  from  the  memory  after  a  term  of  years.  Moreover,  the  answers 
to  the  1878  circular  will  naturally  be  more  accurate  concerning  the  more 
recent  years.  From  1866  to  date,  the  caterpillars  have  been  widespread 
every  year.  In  some  years  the  ravages  have  been  more  severe  and  gen- 
eral than  in  others ;  but  few  localities  in  any  of  the  more  southern  por- 
tions of  the  belt  can  boast  exemption  during  any  one  year.  Both  the 
caterpillars  and  the  boll-worm  have  been  infinitely  more  injurious  than 
in  the  time  before  the  war.  This  is  thought,  as  before  stated,  to  proceed 
almost  entirely  from  the  general  looseness  and  carelessness  of  the  pres- 
ent system  of  cultivation.  Of  course  there  are  many  exceptions,  but  as 
long  as  the  careless  are  in  the  majority  the  innocent  must  suffer  with  the 
guilty. 

In  the  spring  of  1866  there  was  a  large  planting,  and  many  hopes  were 
entertained  for  the  success  of  the  crop.  A  full  crop  was  needed.  The 
war  had  impoverished  the  South,  and  cotton  had  risen  greatly  in  value. 
The  hopes,  however,  of  many  were  destined  not  to  be  fulfilled.  The 
caterpillars  made  their  appearance  in  immense  numbers  in  most  of  the 
States,  and  in  many  localities  destroyed  the  whole  crop.  Louisiania 
lost  one-half  of  her  whole  crop.  Texas  lost  40  per  cent. ;  Alabama  lost 
42  per  cent. ;  and  Mississippi  lost  30  per  cent.  These  figures  are  simply 
general  averages,  for  while  in  one  county  everything  would  be  devoured, 
in  another  the  loss  would  be  small.  Texas  suffered  severely  all  through 
her  cotton-growing  region.  Goliad  County  reported  almost  total  loss- 
In  Austin  County  the  cotton  was  damaged  worse  than  it  ever  had  been 
before.  In  Polk  County  they  "  devoured  everything."  In  Lamar  County 
(the  northernmost  county  of  the  State)  they  made  their  first  and  last 
appearance.  They  never  had  been  seen  there  before;  they  never  have 
been  seen  there  since.  In  Tensas  Parish,  Louisiana,  the  "entire  crop  of 
the  county  was  stripped."  They  were  very  destructive  in  South  Arkan- 
sas, and  across  the  river  in  the  richest  cotton  counties  of  Mississippi. 


HISTORY    OF    RAVAGES,    1867.  29 

In  Alabama  they  were  first  observed  in  Lowndes  County.  They  came 
in  force  by  -the  middle  of  August,  and,  much  of  the  crop  being  young 
from  replanting,  the  damage  was  very  great.  In  Montgomery  County 
they  were  not  found  until  September  1.  In  Greene  County  the  crop  was 
nearly  ruined,  and  adjoining  counties  suffered  severely.  Florida  escaped 
this  year  without  severe  injury,  and  Georgia  was  almost  unscathed. 
The  caterpillars  were  reported  as  far  north  as  Wayne,  Edgecombe,  and 
Franklin  Counties,  in  North  Carolina,  but  their  numbers  were  few,  and 
they  came  late  in  the  season.  The  damage  was  consequently  insignifi- 
cant. 

As  we  have  before  stated,  the  fact  that  the  years  1804, 1825,  and  1846 
had  been  remarkable  caterpillar  years  had  given  rise  to  the  theory,  cred- 
ited by  nearly  every  one,  that  the  greatest  ravages  of  the  chenilles  were 
to  be  expected  at  intervals  of  twenty-one  years,  and,  as  a  result,  many 
had  been  dreading  the  coming  of  1867  as  the  fourth  of  these  terrible 
years.  It  proved,  however,  to  be  but  little  worse  than  1866  as  a  year  of 
general  destruction,  and  it  certainly  was  not  as  bad  as  the  following 
year,  1868.  In  Texas,  it  is  true,  it  was,  perhaps,  as  destructive  a  year 
as  has  been  experienced,  but  in  Louisiana  it  was  no  worse,  and  in  other 
States  not  so  bad  as  the  previous  year.  The  crops  in  Texas  suffered 
greatly.  In  Colorado  and  Fayette  Counties  the  ravages  were  the  worst 
ever  experienced.  As  far  west  as  Comal  County  the  worms  appeared 
in  tremendous  numbers.  In  Austin  County  they  were  even  worse  than 
in  1866,  and  four- fifths  of  the  crop  was  destroyed.  Northeast,  in  Polk, 
Walker,  Trinity,  and  Cherokee,  the  same  state  of  affairs  was  to  be  seen. 
Polk  reports  total  loss.  Our  correspondent  from  Walker  County  says : 
"  They  swept  the  fields  like  a  besom  of  destruction,"  and  in  Cherokee 
great  damage  was  done.  Although  it  has  been  an  unusual  thing  for  the 
northern  tier  of  Texas  counties  to  suffer,  Eed  River  County  this  time 
reported  almost  a  complete  failure.  In  Louisiana  they  were  more  or  less 
destructive  over  the  whole  State,  East  and  West  Feliciana  and  Jackson 
Parishes  suffering  perhaps  the  most.  The  crops  of  counties  along  the 
river  in  Arkansas  and  Mississippi  were  partially  destroyed,  the  interior 
counties  of  the  latter  State  suffering  comparatively  little.  Their  first 
appearance  was  in  June  in  Pike  County,  and  before  the  season  was 
over  this  county  had  suffered  severely.  In  Wilkinson  they  were  very 
destructive,  as  also  in  Covington,  and  later  in  the  season  as  far  north  as 
De  Soto.  In  Alabama  the  losses  were  comparatively  slight.  Greene 
County  lost  one-fifth  of  the  crop,  andPickeus  perhaps  more,  but  in  other 
parts  no  great  injury  was  reported.  Florida  was  also  comparatively 
exempt.  There  were  few  reports  of  losses  from  Georgia,  Charleston 
County  sending  in  the  only  heavy  loss — 5  per  cent.  In  South  and  North 
Carolina  the  caterpillars  were  abundant  toward  the  end  of  the  season, 
but  their  injuries  were  slight  in  the  latter  State,  and  not  great  in  the 
former. 

The  believers  in  the  twenty-one-year  theory  breathed  more  freely  at 


30  EEPOET    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

the  close  of  this  season;  but  their  feelings  of  relief  were  premature,  as 
1868  proved  to  be  one  of  the  worst  years  yet  on  record.  The  ravages 
jn  Texas  and  Louisiana  were,  perhaps,  on  the  whole,  not  equal  to  those 
of  1867,  but  the  other  States  suffered  greatly.  In  Alabama  and  Georgia 
the  injuries  have  only  been  equalled  by  those  of  1873.  The  first  noted 
appearance  of  the  caterpillars  in  1868  was  in  Austin  County,  Texas,  in 
the  latter  part  of  May.  This  was  the  earliest  appearance  up  to  this  time 
on  record,  and  grave  fears  were  at  once  expressed  of  the  failure  of  the 
crop.  These  fears  were  abundantly  fulfilled  so  far  as  Austin  County 
was  concerned,  for  the  crop  was  nearly  destroyed  as  early  as  July  by 
the  third  brood  proper.  In  Fort  Bend  County  they  were  very  numerous 
by  July  20,  but  not  nearly  as  destructive  as  in  Austin.  They  were  again 
present  in  great  numbers  in  Comal  County.  Hardin  reported  the  unusual 
loss  of  one-half,  and  in  Polk  County  the  crop  was  partially  destroyed. 
Further  north,  in  TJpshur,  the  loss  was  not  serious ;  in  Titus  they  made 
no  appearance  till  August  30,  when  it  was  too  late  to  do  much  damage. 
In  Grayson  County  the  crop  was  injured  to  some  extent,  and  Fannin 
reported  a  loss  of  25  per  cent.  Louisiana  as  a  general  thing  reported 
"  not  so  bad  as  1867,"  and  Arkansas  likewise.  In  Mississippi  the  losses 
were  considerable,  in  some  localities  more  and  in  others  less  than  in  the 
preceding  years.  Wilkinson  County  was  badly  afflicted,  while  in  the 
neighboring  county  of  Pike  the  worms  were  not  as  bad  as  in  1867.  In 
Hinds  the  damage  from  insects  was  great,  but  our  correspondent  states 
that  Aletia  ravages  were  inferior  to  those  of  the  boll-worm.  Attala 
County  lost  one-half,  and  Washington  three-tenths,  which  are  perhaps 
but  little  above  the  average  for  that  part  of  the  State.  The  northern 
part,  did  not  suffer  very  greatly,  and  our  correspondent  from  Panola 
states  that  in  his  county  the  injuries  were  less  than  in  any  other  part  of 
the  State.  In  Alabama  the  loss  was  great.  Strange  to  say,  the  more 
northern  regions  suffered  more  than  did  the  southern  and  central  coun- 
ties. There  were  a  few  exceptions  to  this,  for  in  Conecuh  nearly  one-half 
was  lost,  in  Creushaw  one-fourth,  in  Barbour  one-fifth,  and  in  Montgomery 
three-tenths.  Lowndes,  Wilcox,  Dallas,  Autauga,  Perry,  Hale,  Sum- 
ter,  Pickens,  and  Lee  escaped  without  great  injury,  while  in  Clay,  Saint 
Clair,  Marshall,  and  Lawrence  the  losses  amounted  to  one-half  the  crop. 
Great  damage  was  done  in  Northern  Florida.  The  crops  of  Georgia,  how- 
ever, suffered  more  than  those  of  any  other  State.  Decatur  County  lost 
from  one-half  to  two-thirds,  and  in  other  southern  counties  the  damage 
was  great.  The  most  unprecedented  injury  was  done  through  the  center 
of  the  State.  Stewart,  Chattahoochee,  Marion,  Macon,  Taylor,  Crawford, 
Emanuel,  Baldwin,  Troup,  Heard,  Butts,  Columbia,  Wilkes,  Hall,  all 
suffered  severely.  The  damage  in  these  counties  will  foot  up  nearly  to 
one-half  the'crop,  which  is  very  remarkable  for  Central  Georgia,  where 
the  injury  is  rarely  excessive.  In  the  more  northern  counties  it  was  re- 
ported as  coming  too  late  to  do  much  harm.  In  South  Carolina  the 
injury  was  greater  than  it  had  been  before,  dewberry  district  returned 


HISTORY    OF    RAVAGES,    18C9..  31 

a  loss  of  one-third,  a  remarkable  loss  for  this  State.  Considerable  damage 
was  also  done  in  Abbeville  and  Spartansburg  districts.  In  North  Caro- 
lina the  caterpillars  appeared  September  1,  earlier  than  ever  before. 
They  ate  many  leaves,  but  little  damage  was  accomplished.  One  of  our 
correspondents  states  that  they  came  just  at  the  right  time  to  clear  the 
leaves  away  from  the  ripening  bolls. 

Thus  we  see  that  1868  is  the  culminating  point  of  a  long  series  of 
years  in  which  the  ravages  of  the  caterpillars  have  been  gradually  grow- 
ing more  severe,  and  now,  in  1869,  comes  the  sudden  fall ;  1869  proved 
to  be  a  remarkably  dry  year,  and  cotton  suffered  more  from  drought 
than  from  any  other  cause.  This  at  once  brought  Aletia  under  the  power 
of  its  insect  enemies,  and  when  the  statistician  of  this  department  glanced 
over  the  field  in  his  monthly  report  for  December,  1869,  he  stated :  "  The 
caterpillar  and  boll-worm  committed  depredations  in  some  sections,  de- 
stroying here  and  there  the  crop  of  a  county,  but  their  ravages  were  by 
no  means  general."  The  points  of  injury  this  year  were  very  scattered, 
and  were  due,  for  the  most  part,  to  local  causes.  Two  of  the  counties 
in  the  southern  part  of  the  Texas  cotton -growing  region,  Matagorda  and 
Goliad,  suffered  very  severely ;  but  farther  north,  the  crops  were  by  no 
means  greatly  injured.  Off  to  the  west,  the  caterpillars  made  their  ap- 
pearance in  one  field  in  Blanco  County  for  the  first  time  in  its  cotton- 
growing  history.  In  Polk  County  the  crop  was  partially  destroyed,  but 
in  surrounding  counties  the  damage  was  slight.  In  Louisiana  the  worms 
were  to  be  found  all  over  the  State,  but  not  a  single  parish  reports  any 
loss  worthy  of  note.  In  Mississippi,  also,  the  loss  was.  comparatively 
insignificant.  In  Alabama  more  damage  was  done.  A  few  counties, 
which  reported  small  losses  the  year  before,  were  more  severely  afflicted 
this  year.  In  Wilcoxthe  wormswere  very  bad;  Macon  reported  greatdarn- 
age ;  in  Dallas  20  per  cent,  of  the  crop  was  lost,  and  in  Greene  30  per 
cent.  With  these  few  exceptions,  the  injury  was  slight.  From  a  com- 
paratively limited  region  in  Northern  Florida  extremely  varied  accounts 
are  given  of  the  ravages  this  year.  In  Leon  County  the  worms  appeared 
early,  one-fourth  of  the  crop  was  destroyed  and  much  greater  loss  antici- 
pated, when  they  suddenly  and  unaccountably  disappeared.  Bradford 
County  reported  the  damage  as  severe,  and  Putnam  lost  50  per  cent,  of 
the  crop.  Santa  Eosa,  Jackson,  and  Duval,  on  the  other  hand,  report 
the  caterpillars  as  not  very  injurious.  Southern  Georgia  and  the  coast 
counties  of  that  State  were  badly  invaded,  while  the  remainder  of  the 
State  reported  slight  injuries.  In  Brooks  County  the  caterpillars  did 
considerable  damage ;  Glynn  lost  three-tenths  of  the  crop,  and  Liberty 
from  one-third  to  one-half..  The  crop  in  South  Carolina  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  at  all  damaged  this  year.  In  Wayne  County,  North  Caro- 
lina, the  third  brood  of  caterpillars  came  in  August,  the  earliest  date  on 
record  for  that  State,  and  did  some  little  damage. 

We  should  naturally  expect  an  increase  in  the  ravages  of  the  worms 
again  in  1870,  but  the  same  causes  which  reduced  their  numbers  so 


32  REPORT    UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 

greatly  in  1889  again  operated  in  1870,  the  growing  season  being  remark- 
able for  long-continued  drought.  In  the  statistical  summing  up  for 
the  year,  we  find  the  following  remark:  "A  general  exemption  from 
losses  by  insects  is  noted  with  occasional  exceptions,  mostly  in  Louisiana 
and  Texas  (the  counties  of  Matagorda,  Henderson,  and  Eed  Eiver,  in 
Texas,  and  Butherford,  in  Tennessee,  have  been  infested  with  boll- 
worms)."  In  Texas,  Goliad  and  Matagorda  Counties  again  report  con- 
siderable injuries,  and  Galveston  County  lost  one-half  the  crop.  In 
Montgomery  County  they  were  seen  webbing  up  before  July  1.  Polk 
County  lost  part  of  the  crop,  but  elsewhere  they  were  not  bad.  In  Lou- 
isiana the  worms  were  abundant  and  destructive  in  East  Feliciana, 
Bapides,  Avoyelles,  Tensas,  and  Jackson  Parishes.  In  Bapides  the  crop 
was  damaged  20  per  cent,  in  August,  and  there  were  some  injuries  later. 
Avoyelles  lost  50  per  cent,  of  the  crop  from  storms  and  caterpillars. 
Mississippi  -was  almost  entirely  exempt  from  severe  ravages  by  the 
worms.  They  were  present,  but  in  small  numbers.  Nearly  all  of  the 
richest  cotton  counties  of  Alabama  reported  the  presence  of  the  cater- 
pillars in  the  early  part  of  the  year,  but  the  final  reports  show  an  entire 
exemption  from  severe  injuries.  None  of  the  correspondents  in  Florida 
and  Georgia  consider  1870  worthy  of  note  as  a  worm  year,  though  many 
of  them  speak  of  the  unusual  freedom  from  insect  pests.  The  caterpil- 
lars appeared  in  South  Carolina,  and  were  also  reported  from.  Cumber- 
land County,  North  Carolina,  but  no  damage  resulted. 

In  1871  there  was  a  general  increase  in  the  ravages  of  the  worms,  the 
especial  point  of  destruction  being  Louisiana.  The  caterpillars  were 
present  in  force  over  all  the  Southern  cotton  States,  but  in  all  but 
Louisiana  the  last  brood  was  just  too  late  to  destroy  the  crop.  In  Texas 
they  were  reported  from  all  over  the  cotton-growing  region,  from  Bexar 
to  lied  Eiver.  The  greatest  damage  was  done  in  Bexar,  Matagorda, 
Liberty,  Eusk,  and  Cherokee,  but  in  these  counties  it  was  nothing  more 
than  the  top  crop  that  was  taken.  Louisiana,  as  we  have  before  said? 
was  the  point  of  greatest  injury  this  year.  The  loss  was,  however,  very 
unequally  and  strangely  distributed  throughout  the  State.  In  Saint 
Landry  there  was  general  destruction.  Iberia  lost  45  per  cent,  of  the 
crop.  Washington  lost  one-third.  Avoyelles  reported  total  loss,  and 
Caddo  serious  injury.  On  the  other  hand,  although  considerable  injury 
was  done  in  East  and  West  Feliciana,  Eapides,  and  Eichland,  the  parishes 
of  Tangipahoa,  Tensas,  Madison,  Eed  Eiver,  Claiborne,  Ouachita,  and 
Morehouse  report  but  few  worms.  In  La  Fayette  County,  Arkansas 
the  caterpillars  appeared  rather  late,  but  did  some  little  damage.  Mis! 
sissippi  cotton  suffered  more  from  drought  in  1871  than  from  any  other 
cause.  The  caterpillar  did  considerable  damage  in  Wilkinson  and  Jef- 
ferson Counties,  but,  although  they  were  present  all  over  the  State,  their 
injuries  in  other  portions  were  limited.  In  Alabama  the  worms  were 
reported  from  many  localities,  but,  as  before,  losses  were  not  great.  The 
northern  part  of  the  State  was  not  touched.  The  only  counties  reporting 


HISTORY    OF    RAVAGES,  1-72.  33 

loss  that  is  at  all  severe  were  the  widely- separated  ones  of  Crenshaw 
and  Bibb,  fh  each  of  which  the  loss  amounted  to  one-half  of  the  crop. 
The  correspondent  in  Crenshaw  remarked  upon  the  regular  northeast 
course  which  the  worms  seemed  to  take.  In  Florida  the  correspondents 
forgot  to  say  anything  about  the  caterpillars,  in  their  dismay  at  the  havoc 
created  by  the  violent  storms  which  visited  that  section  of  the  country 
the  latter  part  of  the  season.  In  Gadsden  County  alone  does  the  cater- 
pillar seem  to  have  done  much  damage.  In  Georgia  the  caterpillar  was 
an  element  not  to  be  taken  into  account  in  summing  up  the  damage  this 
year.  Early  in  the  season,  drought,  with  rust,  and  later,  violent  storms 
completely  overshadowed  the  insects.  They  were  barely  mentioned  from 
some  half  dozen  localities,  Clay  County  alone  reporting  considerable 
damage  from  their  ravages.  They  do  not  seem  to  have  appeared  this 
year  in  South  and  Xorth  Carolina. 

In  1872  there  was  a  great  increase  in  the  loss  occasioned  by  the  cater- 
pillar ravages.  Texas  did  not  suffer  to  any  great  extent,  and  the  damage 
was  no  more  severe  than  in  the  previous  year  in  Louisiana.  Mississippi 
lost  considerably,  but  the  greatest  injury  was  done  in  Alabama  and 
Florida.  In  Georgia  the  loss  was  much  greater  than  usual,  as  it  was 
also  in  South  Carolina,  and  the  caterpillars  were  very  abundant  in  North: 
Carolina.  The  presence  of  the  worms  early  in  June  was  reported  from 
Texas,  Louisiana,  and  Florida.  In  Texas,  Matagorda  and  Victoria  were 
the  first  counties  to  report  caterpillars ;  in  the  latter  county  they  were 
seen  as  early  as  June  6,  and  in  the  former  about  the  same  time.  Some 
damage  was  done  in  these  counties,  as  well  as  in  De  Witt,  Gonzales, 
Austin,  Waller,  Liberty,  Walker,  Polk,  Upshur,  and  Kaufman.  In. 
Fayette  they  were  very  troublesome,  and  in  Liberty  they  were  present 
iii  large  numbers  as  early  as  July.  The  State  as  a  whole  did  not,  how- 
ever, suffer  at  all  severely.  In  Louisiana  the  caterpillars  were  reported 
in  June  and  appeared  in  force  in  August.  They  nearly  "  finished  "  the 
crop  in  Tangipahoa,  and  reduced  that  of  Marion  to  a  half  average.  In 
Coucordia  many  fields  were  entirely  stripped  of  foliage.  In  Rapides 
two-thirds  of  the  crop  was  destroyed,  and  the  caterpillars  were  reported 
in  injurious  numbers  in  Saint  Landry,  Washington,  Red  River,  and 
Jackson.  Arkansas  reported  them  this  year  from  one  locality  alone, 
Columbia  County.  In  Mississippi  the  ravages  were  general.  Marion, 
Clarke,  Rankin,  Hinds,  and  Noxubee  Counties  suffered  the  most,  perhaps, 
the  loss  in  all  amounting  to  nearly  one-half  the  crop.  In  other  localities 
the  losses  varied  from  almost  nothing  up  to  25  per  cent. 

The  state  of  things  this  year  in  Alabama  was  well  set  forth  in  the 
September  report  of  this  department,  as  follows : 

Our  August  returns  from  Alabama  foreshadowed  an  extensive  visitation  of  the  cot- 
ton caterpillar,  -which,  as  our  September  reports  show,  -was  fully  and  painfully  realized. 
In  some  places  the  boll-worm  vied  with  the  cotton-worm  in  its  destructive  influence. 
Reports  of  either  or  both  of  these  pests  come  from  Macon,  Pike,  Marengo,  Conecuh, 
Perry,  Montgomery,  Creushaw,  Russell,  Fisk.  Calhonn,  Chambers,  Butler,  Autanga, 
Dallas,  Wilcox,  and  Tuscaloosa  Counties.  In  Creushaw  the  fields  -were  denuded  of 
3  c  I 


34  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

foliage..  In  Calhonn  the  crop  prospect  was  reduced  25  per  cent,  in  five- days.  In 
Autauga  the  roads,  woods,  and  wells  were  full  of  army  and  bell-worms.  In  Wilcox 
the  caterpillars,  after  stripping  the  cotton  plant  of  its  leaves,  attacked  the  bolls,  eat- 
ing the  smaller  ones  and  killing  the  larger  ones  by  gnawing  around  them.  In  Perry 
the  crop  was  cut  down  to  half  an  average  after  August  20.  In  Conecuh  the  destruc- 
tion was  almost  complete,  as  it  also  was  in  Russell.  All  through  the  cane-brake  region 
the  loss  was  very  severe.  Butler,  Clark,  Wilcox,  Dallas.  Perry,  and  Tuscaloosa  report 
a  loss  of  one-half;  Pike,  Bibb,  Hale,  Calhonn,  and  Limestone  a  loss  of  one-fourth  or 
over.  With  the  exception  of  1873,  this  was,  perhaps,  as  bad  a  worm  year  as  Alabama 
ever  had.  In  Florida  also  the  damage  was  very  great.  In  Suwannee  County  the 
caterpillars  appeared  July  15,  and  within  a  month  many  fields  were  entirely  stripped. 
Ill  Leon  they  made  their  appearance  August  18,  and  within  ;i  week  t  he  last  cotton  leaf 
had  disappeared. 

The  saine  report  conies  from  Taylor  County.  Columbia  County  suf- 
fered a  loss  of  75  per  cent,  from  rust  and  caterpillars  combined.  Leon 
County  lost  two  thirds  of  the  crop ;  Orange,  Jackson,  Jefferson,  Suwan- 
nee lost  one-half,  and  Clay  one-third.  The  Madison  County  correspond- 
ent, on  the  other  hand,  reported  "not  much  loss."  The  caterpillars 
were  destructive  in  almost  every  part of  Georgia,  although  their  ravages 
Avere  far  less  than  in  the  neighboring  States  of  Alabama  and  Florida. 
"Calhoun  and  Heard  lost  half  the  crop;  Lee,  Marion,  and  Columbia  one- 
third;  Decatur,  Baldwin,  and  Coweta  from  one-fifth  to  one-third;  Ber- 
rien,  Worth,  Clay,  Dooly,  Sumter,  Schley,  Chattahoochee,  Muscogee, 
Upson,  Wilkinson,  Putnam,  Glascock,  Greene,  Spalding,  Floyd,  and 
Chattooga,  all  were  afflicted  in  a  lesser  degree.  In  South  Carolina  the 
caterpillars  were  very  destructive  in  Richland  County.  In  Orangeburgh 
they  appeared  in  great  numbers,  but  were  rather  late.  In  North  Caro- 
lina they  were  widespread,  and  were  reported  from  six  of  the  cotton- 
growing  counties  of  that  State.  So  ends  1872,  which  we  think  can  fairly 
l)e  placed  among  the  six  great  cotton- worm  years,  1804, 182o,  1846, 1868, 
1872, 1873. 

From  the  time  of  the  first  appearance  of  the  chenille  down  to  the* 
.present  date,  it  is  doubtful  if  1873  was  ever  equaled  as  a  year  of  general 
•caterpillar  ravages.  From  Atascosa  and  Medina  Counties  in  Texas,  to 
Prince  George  and  Princess  Anne  in  Virginia,  through  every  portion  of 
the  cotton-growing  region,  these  pests  were  to  be  found  in  destructive 
numbers,  and  few  localities  escaped  serious  injury.  As  was  to  be  ex- 
pected from  their  prevalence  in  1872  the  hibernation  was  extensive  and 
caterpillars  were  reported  remarkably  early  in  the  spring  of  1873.  They 
were  seen  on  May  30  along  the  Flint  River  in  Decatur  County,  Georgia. 
Just  over  the  State  line,  in  Jackson  and  Gadsden  Counties,  Florida,  they 
were  observed  about  the  same  time.  They  had  also' made  their  appear- 
ance in  Marion  County,  Mississippi,  and  also  in  Barbour  County,  Ala- 
bama. 

Early  in  .June  they  were  reported  from  Atascosa  County,  Texas,  a> 
sweeping  the  third  planting  of  cotton,  the  first  two  having  already  been 
destroyed  by  grasshoppers.  They  had  also  made  their  appearance  in 
Victoria  County,  Texas.  Before  July  12  they  had  been  reported  from 


HISTORY    OF    RAVAGES,   1373.  35 

the  following  localities :  Atascosa,  Austin,  and  Galveston  Counties, 
Texas ;  Tangipahoa,  West  Feliciana,  Concordia,  Kapides,  and  Carroll 
Parishes,  Louisiana ;  Wilkinson,  Marion,  and  Jasper  Counties,  Missis- 
sippi; Clarke,  Wilcox,  Dallas,  Tuscaloosa,  Barbour,  and  Saint  Clair 
Counties,  Alabama  ;  Liberty,  Leon,  Jackson,  Gadsden,  Suwannee,  and 
Columbia  Counties,  Florida ;  and  Decatnr  County,  Georgia.  These  local- 
ities are  of  extreme  interest  and  should  be  borne  in  mind  as  showing 
probable  localities  of  hibernation. 

In  Texas  the  distribution  of  the  worms  was  much  more  general  than 
it  ever  had  been  before,  many  counties  reporting  them  for  the  first  time. 
The  points  of  heaviest  damage  seemed  to  be  irregularly  distributed 
throughout  the  cotton-growing  part  of  the  State.  They  seemed  to  fol- 
low no  law,  nor  were  they  massed  together  as  one  would  expect.  The 
greater  or  lesser  destructiveness  seems  to  depend  so  entirely  upon  various 
local  causes  that  this  result  is  brought  about.  The  worms  were  more 
universally  present  in  the  southwest  cotton  counties  than  before,  but  few 
of  them  suffered  severely,  the  exceptions  being  Medina,  Brazoria,  Fort 
Bend,  and  Lavaca.  The  following  counties  were  the  worst  afflicted  of 
any  in  the  State:  Burnet,  Austin,  Waller,  Washington,  Grimes,  Hardin, 
Xacogdoches,  Shelby,  Marion,  Eusk,  Henderson.  The  loss  in  these 
counties  amounted  to  from  25  per  cent,  to  75  per  cent,  of  the  crop.  The 
correspondent  from  Liberty  says  that  total  destruction  was  anticipated, 
but  that  the  caterpillars  unaccountably  stopped  short  of  the  whole  crop. 
A  curious  fact  was  noted  by  the  correspondent  from  Smith  County  to 
the  effect  that  while  the  cotton  on  "red  lands"  was  seriously  damaged, 
that  on  "  gray  lands  "  was  scarcely  touched. 

In  Louisiana  the  damage  was  very  great.  The  more  southern  parts 
of  the  State  were  seriously  injured  by  the  earlier  broods  of  the  cater- 
pillars, while  the  more  northern  Counties  were,  some  of  them,  entirely 
untouched  until  late  in  September.  Even  as  late  as  this  the  crop  was 
in  many  instances  almost  entirely  destroyed.  In  Iberia,  Tangipahoa, 
West  Feliciana,  Avoyelles,  Kapides,  Tensas,  Franklin,  Caddo,  Boissier, 
and  Claiborue  the  worms  did  great  damage,  inflicting  losses  varying 
from  one-third  to  nearly  the  whole  crop.  Madison,  however,  and  one  or 
two  other  more  northern  parishes,  reported  them  as  coming  too  late  to 
do  much  harm.  The  caterpillars  were  this  year  more  abundant  m  Ar- 
kansas than  they  ever  had  been  before.  Great  damage  was  done  in 
Hempstead  County;  the  top  crop  was  taken  in  Little  River,  and  con- 
siderable damage  was  done  in  Columbia,  Union,  Ashley,  Drew,  Dorsey, 
Clark,  Polk,  and  Garland  Counties.  Mississippi  was  badly  afflicted  all 
over  the  State.  Appearing  in  Marion  in  May,  they  rapidly  spread  and 
increased  with  each  successive  brood.  Some  of  the  upper  counties  they 
did  not  reach  until  after  the  1st  of  September.  Loss  amounting  to  20 
per  cent,  of  the  crop  and  over  was  inflicted  on  the  following  counties : 
Wilkinson,  Jefferson,  Claiborue,  Clark.  Warren,  Rankiu,  Madison,  Wash- 
ington, Lowndes,  Le  Flore,  Grenada,  Lee,  and  several  others.  The  cat- 


36  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

erpillars  made  their  appearance  this  year  in  Tennessee  in  considerable 
numbers,  but  their  ravages  were  inferior  to  those  of  the  boll- worm. 
Shelby  County  reported  50  per  cent,  loss  from  the  coinbiu  ed  ravages  of 
the  two  insects.  In  Dickinson  County  the  crops  were  also  damaged  by 
Aletia.  In  Alabama  the  caterpillars  were  this  year  reported  from  thirty- 
eight  counties.  Many  who,  up  to  this  time,  had  considered  the  loss  un- 
worthy of  mention  now  sent  in  exaggerated  reports  of  the  ravages- 
Some,  however,  report  them  as  not  so  destructive  as  in  the  previous  year, 
which,  it  will  be  remembered,  wTas  one  of  the  worst  years  Alabama  ever 
experienced.  The  caterpillars  made  their  first  appearance  along  the 
Chattahoochee  River,  in  Barbour  County,  and  in  that  county  before  the 
end  of  the  season  they  had  damaged  the  crop  to  the  extent  of  one-half 
In  Henry  County,  just  south,  they  were  not  seen  until  much  later,  but 
then  came  in  immense  numbers  and  stripped  the  fields.  In  Coffee  and 
other  counties  farther  to  the  west  only  the  late  cotton  suffered  seriously 
Throughout  the  canebrake  the  damage  was  very  great.  Dallas  County 
suffered  a  loss  of  more  than  one-half.  Lowndes  reported  a  loss  of  70 
percent.  Montgomery  reported  "weed  late,  and  worms  early;  damage 
very  great."  Autauga  lost  from  two-thirds  to  three-fourths  of  the  crop. 
In  Hale  the  crop  was  the  poorest  for  thirty-five  years.  Greene  lost  one- 
third.  On  the  other  hand  Bullock  County,  surrounded  by  Barbour, 
Russell,  Pike,  Macou,  and  Montgomery,  in  which  the  damage  was  so 
great,  reported  "not  many  worms."  Of  the  more  northern  counties, 
Bibb  reported  one-third  loss ;  Chambers  reported  the  top  crop  ruined  and 
other  damage ;  in  Randolph,  Talladega,  and  Calhouu  they  were  very 
bad  ;  in  Saint  Clair  and  Jefferson  they  were  also  destructive.  The  cor- 
respondent from  Blount  County  said :  "  Caterpillars  took  the  leaves,  but 
this  only  hastened  the  ripening  of  the  bolls ;  best  crop  ever  produced 
here." 

In  Florida,  in  1873,  the  principal  damage  was  done,  not  as  usual  in 
the  northwest  but  in  the  northeast.  In  Jackson,  Liberty,  Gadsden,  and 
Leon,  our  old  standby's  for  the  caterpillars,  they  were  present  in  force, 
but  the  loss  they  occasioned  was  so  insignificant  compared  with  that 
made  by  the  September  and  October  storms  that  they  were  lost  sight  of 
by  the  correspondents;  then,  too,  the  storms  destroyed  the  caterpillars 
even  more  effectually  than  the  cotton.  In  Jefferson,  Taylor,  Madison, 
Suwannee,  Hamilton,  and  Columbia  Counties,  however,  the  damage  from 
caterpillars  was  enormous.  The  correspondent  from  Taylor  County  pa 
renthesizes,  "the  caterpillars  have  nearly  stopped  cotton  culture  in  this 
county." 

One  of  the  very  worst  affected  States  in  1873  was  ( J.-oi -gia.  The  cat- 
erpillars were  reported  earliest  from  this  State,  and  later  in  the  season 
were  to  be  found  in  almost  every  cotton  field  within  her  limits,  from  De- 
catur  to  Whitfield.  The  counties  in  which  the  most  injury  was  doue? 
•were  as  follows :  Clinch,  Sumter,  Stewart,  Taylor,  Wilkinson.  Tbese 
counties  lost  one  half  or  more.  Calhonn,  Lee,  Worth,  Dooly,  Marion, 


HISTORY    OF    RAVAGES,   1873.  37 

Schley,  Muscogee,  Twiggs,  Richmond,  McDuffie,  Heard,  Coweta,  Bald- 
win, Wilkes,  Lincoln,  Jackson,  Carroll  all  report  losses  varying  from 
25  to  50  per  cent.  Even  as  far  north  as  Floyd,  Franklin,  and  Whitfield, 
the  top  crop  was  swept,  and  the  sum  total  considerably  shortened.  Many 
counties  reported  it  the  worst  year  ever  experienced,  the  crop  being 
nearly  ruined.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  coast  counties  did  not  suffer 
this  year  as  greatly  as.  did  the  counties  in  the  interior,  whereas  usually 
the  reverse  is  the  case. 

In  South  Carolina  the  invasion  was  quite  general.  In  many  districts 
whieh  had  simply  known  it  as  a  late  fall  coiner,  it  appeared  early  enough 
to  do  some  little  damage,  but  few  seem  to  have  suffered  at  all  severely. 
In  Lexington  they  were  bad,  and  in  Marion  all  cotton  on  improved  lands 
was  stripped.  In  Edgefield  the  growth  of  the  plants  was  stopped  by 
the  leaf-eating  of  the  caterpillars,  but  the  bolls  opened  finely.  This 
was  also  the  case  in  Orangeburgh,  but  the  quality  of  the  cotton  was 
injured  by  the  excrement  of  the  worms.  They  were  reported,  in  addi- 
tion to  these  districts,  from  Williamsburgh,  Eichland,  Fairfield,  New- 
berry,  Laurens,  Chesterfield,  and  Marlborough. 

InNorth  Carolina,  the  prevalenceof  the  caterpillars  was  utterly  beyond 
all  precedent,  and  in  some  counties  great,  damage  was  done.  In  Bladen, 
rust  and  caterpillars  combined  to  make  a  loss  of  50  per  cent.  In  Carteret, 
they  were  worse  than  ever  before ;  late  plantings  were  cut  down  one- 
half.  In  Lenoir,  the  crop  suffered  a  loss  from  caterpillars  alone  of  25 
per  cent.  In  Stanley,  they  were  observed  in  parts  of  the  county  where 
they  were  never  known  before,  but  were  too  late  to  do  much  damage. 
In  Greene,  the  leaves  were  stripped.  In  Pitt,  they  appeared  for  the  first 
time  and  did  considerable  damage.  The  correspondent  from  Beaufort 
says :  "  The  caterpillars  saved  the  top  crop  from  frost."  In  Chowan, 
the  caterpillars  made  their  first  appearance,  and  in  Perquimons  they 
damaged  the  crop  to  the  extent  of  50  per  cent.  Currituck  suffered  a 
loss  of  one -third  of  the  crop,  and  in  Martin,  where  they  appeared  for 
the  first  time,  the  late  crop  was  taken  entire.  Many  other  counties 
chronicled  their  appearance  without  further  comment. 

In  the  latter  part  of  September  and  the  early  part  of  October,  the 
chenilles  did  the  unheard  of  thing  of  appearing  in  the  cotton  fields  of 
Virginia  in  sufficient  numbers  to  do  a  little  damage.  The  correspond- 
ent from  Sussex  County  says :  "A  worm  heretofore  unknown  stripped 
the  leaves  just  before  the  cool  nights  of  October."  In  Southampton, 
the  leaves  were  also  stripped.  In  Prince  George,  all  the  cotton  was  late 
planted  and  was  more  or  less  injured  by  the  caterpillars.  In  Princess 
Anne,  their  presence  was  also  noted. 

The  comparison  between  the  damage  done  by  the  cotton-worm  and 
that  produced  by  other  causes  this  year,  is  well  treated  in  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  Monthly  Eeport  for  February,  1874,  as  follows  : 

The  causes  of  injury  are  various,  the  more  prominent  being  the  ravages  of  worms 
in  stopping  the  development,  of  the  bolls  and  staining  fiber ;  the  destruction  of  the 
plant  or  beating  out  the  fiber,  or  reducing  its  grade  with  dirt  and  "  trash,"  by  heavy 

ona/i  tyy 


38  REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

storms  of  rain  or  wind ;  premature  decay  arising  from  imperfect  cultivation,  supera- 
bundant moisture  in  the  soil  in  the  spring,  drought  in  summer,  and  the  train  of  dis- 
eases which  accompany  the  low  vitality  of  the  plant  from  whatever  cause,  and, 
finally,  the  effect  of  frost  in  arresting  the  development  of  half-mature  liber  and  in 
discoloring  it.  The  relative  influence  of  each  cause  in  damaging  the  crop  of  1873,  as 
indicated  by  our  correspondents,  may  be  stated  in  the  following  order  in  the  different 
States : 

North  Carolina.—  Rains,  frost,  worms. 

South  Carolina. — Rains,  frost,  worms. 

Georgia. — Worms,  more  than  all  other  causes  combined ;  rains,  frost,  drought,  high 
•winds. 

Florida. — Storms  of  rain,  worms. 

Alabama. — Worms,  rains,  frost. 

Mississippi.— Worms,  spring  rains,  drought,  frost. 

Louisiana. — Worms,  rains,  high  winds. 

Texas. — Worms,  rains,  drought,  frost,  bad  gins  and  inexperienced  giuners. 

Arkansas. — Rains,  worms,  drought,  frost. 

Tennessee. — Drought,  frost,  rains,  plant-lice,  a  cold  and  wet  spring. 

In  the  Gulf  States  the  greatest  injury  thus  appears  to  have  been  wrought  by  worms, 
excepting  only  Florida,  where  the  devastating  storms  in  September  and  October,  par- 
ticularly that  of  September  19,  proved  more  destructive  than  the  caterpillar,  which 
was  abundant  and  sufficiently  injurious.  Though  the  main  damage  by  insects  was 
done  by  the  caterpillar  (Anonilina)  there  was  much  loss  occasioned  by  the  boll-worm 
(Heliothis  Armigera)  and  some  injury  in  localitie.3  by  the  cotton-louse  or  Aphis. 

All  through  the  South  the  efforts  of  the  planters  against  the  cottou- 
worin  were  this  year  marked  by  the  first  extensive  use  of  Paris  green. 
The  fact  that  experiments  with  the  "  green  "  as  a  cotton-worm  destroyer 
had  been  made  during  the  season  of  1872,  was  incidentally  mentioned 
by  Prof.  J.  Parish  Stelle  in  an  article  in  the  Mobile  Register  in  the  fall 
of  that  year  j*  and  in  a  recent  letter  from  Professor  Stelle,  he  claims  the 
credit  of  being  the  first  to  publicly  recommend  its  use,  through  the  col- 
umns of  that  paper.  Mr.  J.  Donovan,  of  Kushla,  Ala.,  experimented 
with  the  poison  in  1872,  and  claims  (according  to  Mr.  Schwarz)  to  be  the 
first  who  ever  applied  it  for  the  destruction  of  Aletia.  Professor  Stelle 
remarks  in  his  letter  that  Mr.  Donovan  first  applied  it  in  obedience  to  a 
recommendation  of  his  in  the  Register.  Rev.  W.  A.  Stickney,  of  Fauns- 
dale,  Ala.,  informs  me  by  letter  that  early  in  1873  a  Mr.  Clark  was  sell- 
ing Paris  green  in  Alabama  for  the  destruction  of  the  cotton-worm,  and 
claimed  that  it  had  been  fully  tried  the  previous  year  in  Texas.  Mr. 
Stickney  says:  "I  could  not  ascertain  whether  the  experiment  had 
been  applied  to  crops  preceding  1872.  But  from  that  year  (1872),  if  not 
still  further  back,  Clark's  formula  derived  warranty." 

In  May,  1873,  Prof.  C.  V.  Riley  publicly  recommended  Paris  green  as  a 
cotton- worm  destroyer  before  the  Indianapolis  meeting  of  the  American 
Agricultural  Congress,  and  in  his  Sixth  Missouri  Entomological  Report 
mentions  the  fact  that  he  had  suggested  it  theprerioua  year  in  the  fol- 
lowing words : 

In  June,  1872,  at  the  organization  in  Saint  Louis  of  the  National  Agricultural  ('011- 
greas,  there  were  present  many  delegates  from  the  South.    It  was  my  privilege  on  that 
•  l.N  inn.r.  Southern  Farm  and  House,  October  1672,  p.  457. 


FIRST    USE  OF    PARIS    GREEN.  39 

occasion  to  lecture  before  the  congress  on  economic  entomology,  and  to  suggest,  in 
answer  to  inquiries  from  Gen.  William  H.  Jackson,  of  Nashville,  Tenu.,  and  Dr.  J.  O. 
Wharton,  of  Ferry,  Miss.,  that  the  Paris  green  mixture  which  was  doing  such  good 
work  in  preserving  our  potato  fields  against  the  ravages  of  the  Colorado  potato-beetle 
might  prove  equally  efficient  against  the  ravages  of  the  insect  which  takes  the  place 
of  this  potato  enemy  in  the  cotton  fields  of  the  .South. 

At  the  Indianapolis  meeting'  of  the  congress,  according  to  Professor 
Stelle,  after  the  reading  of  Professor  Riley's  paper,  Mr.  Donovan  rose 
and  made  the  statement  that  he  had  used  the  poison  the  previous  year, 
]  872,  at  the  recommendation  of  the  Mobile  Register.  The  whole  question 
indeed,  as  to  whom  the  credit  is  due,  is  involved  in  doubt ;  it  is,  however, 
not  a  question  of  paramount  importance. 

In  early  fall,  1S73,  the  following  circular  was  issued  by  Commissioner 
Watts,  with  a  view  of  ascertaining  the  practical  workings  of  Paris 
green : 

PROTECTION  AGAINST  COTTON  INSECTS. 

To  Correspondents : 

The  annual  losses  of  cotton  from  ravages  of  cotton  insects  amount  possibly  to  half 
a  million  bales  in  years  of  insect  prevalence,  One-fourth  of  a  million  bales  would  be 
deemed  a  light  infliction,  and  yet,  at  $100  per  bale,  such  a  loss  would  be  equivalent  to 
$25,000,000.  The  methods  to  be  employed  for  lessening  their  ravages  have  been  here- 
tofore canvassed  by  the  entomologist  of  this  department.  The  remedy  can  only  be 
applied  by  the  planters  themselves,  and  their  own  experience  can  best  render  practi- 
cable and  efficient  the  means  employed. 

Numerous  correspondents  have  of  late  been  experimenting  with  a  mixture  of  Paris 
green  and  flour  or  plaster,  dusted  on  the  plants  when  wet  with  dew — a  remedy  which 
lias  proved  very  efficient  against  the  Colorado  potato-beetle  and  other  insects.  Some 
report  this  remedy  effectual  against  the  cotton-caterpillar,  while  others  declare  it  of 
no  value  whatever  ;  ochers,  still,  hesitate  to  try  it  for  fear  of  poisoning.  It  is  of  the 
utmost  importance  that  the  facts  in  the  experience  of  planters  the  present  season 
should  be  carefully  reported,  showing  the  quality  and  proportions  of  material  used, 
the  method  and  frequency  of  its  application,  and  the  observed  results,  that  a  thorough 
test  may  be  made  of  its  value  or  worthlessness.  The  answer  of  the  following  questions 
is  therefore  requested : 

I.  What  is  the  result  of  your  experience  or  observations  as  to  the  efficacy  of  Paris 
green,  or  other  arsenical  compounds  mixed  with  flour  or  plaster,  for  the  destruction,  of 
the  cotton-caterpillar  f 

II.  In  what  proportions,  and  in  what  mode,  time,  and  frequency  of  application  have 
experiments  been  made  ? 

III.  Have  any  injurious  effects  of  the  poison  been  observed,  either  upon  the  plants 
or  the  soil,  or  in  human  poisoning  in  its  application,  or  in  the  destruction  of  beneficial 
insects,  as  bees,  &c  ? 

IV.  Have  you  used  any  other  remedies,  or  means  of  extirpation,  such  as  fires  or 
torches  in  the  fields  to  destroy  the  perfect  moths  on  their  first  appearance,  and  with 

What  SUCrcs.S  .' 

Yours,  resppctfullv, 

FRED'K.  WATTS, 

Commissioner. 

The  report  on  the  answers  to  this  circular  as  published  in  the  depart- 
ment report  for  1873  show  the  results  of  most  experiments  with  Paris 
green  to  be  highly  favorable  to  its  use  as  a  remedy,  and  it  has  since 
been  extensively  used  throughout  the  South.  There  are  still  many  who- 


40  REPORT    UPON    COTTOX    INSECTS. 

earnestly  protest  against  the  use  of  this  poison;  but  a  discussion  as  to 
its  merits  does  not  belong'  here,  and  will  be  found  in  Chapter  VII, 
under  the  head  of  "  Remedies." 

After  1873 — the  climax — came  1874  which  may  be  called  an  anti-cli- 
max. 1874  was  a  remarkably  dry  year  over  nearly  the  whole  of  the  cotton 
belt,  Texas  alone  suffering  more  perhaps  from  worms  than  from  drought. 
The  result  was,  as  it  has  been  in  so  many  cases,  that  the  injuries  of  the 
caterpillars  underwent  a  most  wonderful  diminution  from  those  of  the 
previous  year,  and  very  few  localities  report  1874  as  a  severe  worm  year. 
The  caterpillars  made  their  appearance  in  June  in  Southern  Texas,  but 
increased  remarkably  slowly  with  successive  broods.  Toward  the  latter 
part  of  the  season,  however,  they  were  present  in  destructive  numbers  in. 
many  counties.  Paris  green  was  used  to  a  considerable  extent  this  year 
and  with  success  in  some  localities.  The  correspondent  from  Lavaca 
County  reports  "  caterpillars  would  have  been  destructive  but  for  the  use 
of  Paris  green."  From  Harris  County  the  report  was,  "Paris  green  keeps 
them  in  check."  The  greatest  losses  were  reported  from  the  widely-sep- 
arated counties  of  Burnetand  Hardin,  Burnet  reporting 40  per  cent,  loss 
and  Hardin  33 per  cent.  The  top  crop  was  destroyed  in  Austin  and  Ban- 
dera.  Considerable  damage  was  done  in  Colorado,  Waller,  Fayette,  Polk 
and  Cherokee.  The  worms  were  on  hand,  but  little  injury  was  done  in  San 
Jacinto,  Walker,  Upshur  and  in  most  of  the  more  northern  counties.  In 
Mississippi  the  crop  suffered  severely  from  drought,  and  in  most  locali- 
ties the  case  was,  as  the  correspondent  from  Kemper  County  expressed 
it,  "  the  drought  killed  the  cotton  and  the  worms  too."  The  leaves  were 
stripped,  however,  in  Lowndes,  Wilkinson  and  several  other  counties, 
which  served  to  make  the  plants  still  more  susceptible  to  the  drought. 
In  Hancock  County,  down  on  the  Gulf  coast,  the  crop  suffered  severely 
from  the  caterpillars.  The  correspondent  from  that  county  said :  "  Here- 
tofore it  was  thought  that  worms  would  not  injure  cotton  on  the  sea- 
shore, but  this  hope  has  proved  fallacious." 

In  Louisiana,  the  chenille  made  its  appearance  in  early  June,  Kapides 
being  the  first  parish  to  report  its  presence.  The  damage  done  in  the 
State  was  not  at  all  great,  as  from  the  slow  increase  occasioned  by 
drought  and  parasites,  they  did  not  attain  injurious  numbers  until  it  was 
too  late  to  do  much  harm. 

In  Alabama  the  crop  \v;is  a  poor  one,  but  this  was  due  more  to  drought 
than  to  insect  ravages.  Several  counties,  it  is  true,  reported  "ruined 
by  drought  and  caterpillars";  but  the  caterpillars  were  invariably 
subordinated  to  the  drought.  The  correspondent  from  Coffee  County 
reported  "  some  worms,  but  the  drought  was  too  much  for  them."  Bar- 
bour  and  surrounding  counties  reported  them  as  "not  bad,"  and  esti- 
mated the  loss  at  perhaps  one  sixth  of  the  crop.  In  Florida  the  state 
of  affairs  was  mucli  the  same  ;  the  damage  from  insects  \vas  compara- 
tively insignificant.  Nearly  all  localities  reported  that  the  hot  weather 
killed  the  caterpillars. 


THE  MIGRATION  THEORY.  41 

» 

Iii  Georgia  the  worms  were  widespread — a  natural  result  from  the 
great  invasion  of  the  previous  year.  In  Early  they  were  seen  July  1, 
and  had  done  some  little  damage  before  picking  season.  In  Schley  they 
appeared  too  late  to  do  harm,  and  in  Muscogee  were  seen  upon  bottom 
lands  only.  Some  damage  was  done  in  Dodge,  Wilkes,  Jackson,  and 
several  other  counties,  and  Murray  suffered  a  loss  of  40  per  cent.  In 
South  Carolina  they  were  seen  in  a  few  localities,  some  crops  being  dam- 
aged in  Beaufort  and  Eichlaud  Counties.  Pamlico  County,  Xorth  Caro- 
lina, reported  "  the  worm,"  but  it  is  difficult  to  say  whether  the  cotton- 
worm  or  the  boll- worm  is  meant. 

In  the  latter  part  of  this  year  Mr.  A.  R.  Grote  read  a  paper  before 
the  Hartford  meeting  of  the  American  Association  for  the  Advance- 
ment of  Science,  in  which  lie  announced  that,  after  long  study  and 
personal  observation,  he  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  "  the  cotton 
worm  may  be  considered  not  a  denizen,  but  a  visitant  brought  by  va- 
rious causes  to  breed  in  a  strange  region,  and  that  it  naturally  dies  out 
with  ns  in  the  cotton  belt,  unable  to  suit  itself  as  yet  to  the  altered 
economy  of  its  food  plant  and  to  contend  with  the  changes  of  our 
seasons." 

This  is,  of  course,  nothing  more  than  a  repetition  of  the  migration 
theory,  as  we  may  call  it,  which  Thomas  Affleck,  Dr.  Gorham,  and  Dr.  Bur- 
nett had  successively  and  independently  put  forth  as  the  result  of  their 
study  into  the  natural  history  of  this  insect,  and  it  is  a  very  interesting 
fact,  that  a  man  of  Mr.  Crete's  scientific  ability  should  have  arrived  at 
the  same  result  through  independent  observation  and  reasoning.  It  is 
also  a  curious  and  interesting  fact  that  one  of  the  arguments  by  which 
Dr.  Gorham  reached  this  theory,  and  one  of  the  main  arguments  by 
which  Mr.  Grote  arrived  at  the  same  point,  started  from  bases  as  diam- 
etrically opposed  to  each  other  as  two  bases  could  well  be  j  namely,  the 
existence  and  the  non-existence  of  parasites'.  Dr.  Gorham  visits  the 
cotton  fields  after  the  last  brood  of  worms  has  spun  up,  and,  finding 
every  chrysalis  that  he  tries  to  breed  parasitized,  jumps  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  all  of  the  last  brood  are  parasitized.  The  natural  question 
now  is,  where  will  they  come  from  next  year  ?  and  the  natural  conclu- 
sion, from  some  exterior  country  where  the  cotton  plant  is  perennial  and 
parasites  do  not  exist.  Mr.  Grote's  observations,  on  the  other  hand, 
failed  to  show  him  any  parasite,  although  he  acknowledged  that  such 
might  exist ;  and  the  absence  of  such  peculiar  parasites  argued  that  the 
worm  was  not  a  regular  denizen,  and  could  be  accounted  for  only  by  the 
s] .reading  of  the  insect  as  a  moth.  Since  Mr.  Grote  again  put  the  old 
theory  into  shape,  it  has  been  much  discussed  by  those  interested,  its 
principal  opponent  being  Professor  Riley.  Yet  that  the  latter  plainly 
acklowledged  the  strength  of  Mr.  Grote's  arguments  is  seen  in  the  cot- 
ton-worm circular  of  1878.  (See  introduction.)  A  special  chapter  will 
be  devoted  to  this  subject. 

In  March,  18o4,  some  six  mouths  before  Mr.  Grote  read  his  Hartford 


42  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

paper,  Mr.  Townend  Glover  was  casually  placed  on  record  *  as  favor- 
ing what  may  be  called  &  partial  iitun  it/ration  theory,  in  the,  following 
words : 

The  theory  of  oar  entomologist,  which  he  deems  to  be  sufficiently  verified  by  some 
years  of  study  in  the  field  as  to  the  movement  and  spread  of  the  caterpillar,  is  that  iu 
the  more  northern  portion  of  the  cotton  belt  the  frosts  of  winter  destroy  the  insect  in 
all  its  stages,  unless  iu  situations  of  unusual  protection,  but  that  ui  the  more  southern 
portion,  where  severe  frosts  rarely  occur,  they  survive  the  risks  of  Avinter,  and  us  they 
increase,  by  their  repeated  generations  during  the  summer,  they  migrate  northward 
*a  the  fly-state  (the  perfect  insect)  to  "fresh  fields  and  pastures  new."  This  would 
account  for  the  general  prevalence  of  the  insecton  the  gulf  coast  and  its  comparative 
scarcity  and  late  appearance  in  the  more  northern  regions,  which  facts  are  by  no 
means  singular  in  the  records  of  the  past  year,  but  in  accordance  with  the  history  of 
former  visitations. 

All  credit  should  be  given  to  Mr.  Glover  for  this  phase  of  the  theory, 
which  the  extended  investigations  of  the  past  year  show  to  have  been 
more  nearly  correct  than  any  suggestion  heretofore  made.  Indeed,  the 
work  of  Mr.  Glover  on  cotton  insects,  the  results  of  which  are  scattered 
all  through  the  Department  of  Agriculture  reports  from  1854  to  1874,  is 
by  far  the  most  valuable  that  has  been  done  by  any  one  person.  This 
tribute  is  due  to  Mr.  Glover,  and  we  can  only  regret  that  a  painful  dis- 
ease  debars  him  from  prolonged  scientific  work. 

In  1875,  instead  of  an  increase  over  the  preceding  year,  we  see  a  still 
further  decrease  in  the  prevalence  of  the  cotton  caterpillars,  owing  to 
nearly  the  same  causes  which  produced  the  decrease  iu  1874.  Eighteen 
hundred  and  seventy-five  was  another  very  dry  year,  and  in  August  and 
September  there  was  an  occasional  severe  storm,  causing  great  damage- 
From  these  causes  the  caterpillars  were  so  held  in  check  that  in  the 
monthly  report  for  September,  1875,  we  find  the  following  statement : 
"Losses  from  prevalence  of  insects  will  scarcely  be  a  factor  in  calculat- 
ing the  product  of  the  present  year."  In  fact,  the  only  State  in  wliich 
much  damage  was  done  was  Florida.  In  Texas  they  were  first  seen  in 
July,  but  in  very  small  numbers.  In  Austin  County  alone  do  they  ap- 
pear to  have  done  any  material  damage,  unless  we  except  Polk  County, 
where  the  crop  is  said  to  have  been  "  partially  destroyed."  Slight  in- 
juries were  reported  from  Matagorda,  Fayette,  Waller,  Hardin,  Walker, 
Limestone,  Bosque,  and  Upshur.  From  Louisiana  there  were  no  reports 
of  insect  prevalence  in  1875.  The  cotton- worm  was  there,  but  in  such 
small  numbers  that  it  would  have  been  a  waste  of  ink  on  the  part  of 
correspondents  to  mention  it.  From  Arkansas  the  caterpillars  were  re- 
ported from  Woodruff  and  Pope  Counties.  In  Mississippi  the  damage 
was  very  slight.  In  Alabama  the  worms  were  more  abundant  than  in 
the  last-named  States,  but  still  did  but  little  injury  to  the  crop.  In 
Lowndes  they  were  reported  to  have  eaten  things  clear,  but  in  other  lo- 
calities they  were  not  worthy  of  extended  notice.  In  Florida  the  damage 
was  greater.  The  caterpillars  do  not  seem  to  have  been  noticed  early  in 

•Department  of  Agriculture,  monthly  Report,  February  :md  March,  1*74.  1 


HISTORY    OF    RAVAGES,  1876.  43- 

the  season,  and  their  coming  in  force  later  seemed  all  the  more  disas- 
trous from  being  unexpected.  The  correspondent  from  Jackson  County 
said:  "After  the  appearance  of  a  fine  top  crop,  the  caterpillars  made 
their  appearance  in  force  and  cut  off  all  our  hopes/'  There  were  injuries 
in  many  localities,  notably  in  Columbia  and  Leon  Counties.  In  Georgia 
they  were  noticed  in  several  localities,  but  their  damage  was  very  slight 
In  South  and  Xorth  Carolina  they  appear  not  to  have  been  noticed. 

In  1876  there  was  a  general  increase  in  the  numbers  of  the  caterpil- 
lars and  in  the  extent  of  their  ravages.  The  following  brief  extracts 
from,  the  monthly  reports  will  serve  to  give  a  general  idea  of  their  preva- 
lence and  importance: 

The  caterpillar  is  confined  to  the  southerly  portion  of  the  Gulf  States;  its  depreda- 
tions are  most  severe  in  Alabama.  In  most  of  the  infested  districts  its  reproduction, 
was  too  late  to  destroy  the  top  crops.  *  *  Caterpillars  appeared  about  the  mid- 

dle of  July  in  Liberty  County,  Georgia,  and  stripped  the  plants  of  leaves,  hut  not  so- 
early  as  to  materially  injure  the  yield.  Some  damage  by  the  caterpillars  is  reported 
in  Early  County,  and  in  Muscogee.  *  *  *  Caterpillars  have  reduced  the  yield  in 
Florida,  notably  in  Columbia  County.  *  f  The  caterpillar  has  been  somewhat 

destructive  to  the  top  crop  in  portions  of  Alabama.  The  loss  is  estimated  at  50  per 
cent,  in  Conecuh ;  at  40  per  cent,  in  Hale  (50  in  the  southern  portion),  where  the 
nelds  were  swept  as  early  as  the  1st  of  September.  *  '  The  causes  of  injury  in 

Mississippi  are  worms,  drought,  wet  weather,  and  frosts.     *  f    The  causes  for 

injury  for  1876  may  be  summed  up:  drought  on  the  Atlantic  coast,  the  caterpillars  in 
the  Gulf  States,  in  Alabama  especially,  and  the  boll-worm  in  Arkansas. 

In  Texas  the  caterpillars  appeared  in  force  much  later  than  the  pre- 
vious year,  but  yet  were  sufficiently  early  to  do  considerable  damage. 
The  localities  of  their  earliest  appearance  in  Texas  have  nearly  always 
been  in  the  Colorado  and  Brazos  bottoms,  and  these  have  also  been 
almost  universally  the  worst  affected  localitias.  This  year,  up  the  line 
of  those  rivers,  Matagorda,  Waller,  Austin,  Fayette,  Bastrop,  and  Bur- 
net  report  the  worst  injuries  that  are  reported  from  the  State,  while  in 
counties  both  south  and  north  the  worms  were  almost  invariably  too 
late.  In  Victoria  the  worms  appeared  later  than  last  year,  but  stripped 
the  leaves.  In  Lavaca  only  the  late  plantings  were  taken.  In  Mata- 
gorda they  were  "bad,"  and  in  Austin  made  a  "clean  sweep."  Burnet 
lost  40  per  cent,  of  the  crop,  but  in  Cherokee,  Rusk,  Upshur,  and  neigh- 
boring counties,  the  damage  was  slight.  In  Louisiana  and  Arkansas 
the  damage  this  year  was  slight,  and  occurred  principally  in  Rapides  and 
Caddo  Parishes,  Louisiana,  and  in  Xevada  County,  Arkansas.  In  Mis- 
sissippi, considerable  injury  was  done,  principally  on  the  Alabama  side 
of  the  State,  in  the  counties  of  Jasper,  Clarke,  Kemper,  and  Lowndes. 
The  Jasper  County  crop  was  greatly  injured ;  in  Clarke  the  whole  top 
crop  was  taken ;  in  Kemper,  the  plants  were  stripped ;  and  in  Lowndes, 
a  loss  of  from  35  to  50  per  cent,  was  suffered.  In  other  parts  of  the 
State  the  worms  appeared,  doing  the  most  harm  in  Covington,  Wilkin- 
son, Adams,  Jefferson,  and  Rankin.  Of  these,  Jefferson  suffered  the 
most — 25  per  cent.  In  Alabama  the  worms  were  present  in  all  parts  of 
the  State,  from  Baldwin  to  Lauderdale.  Few  localities  outside  of  the 


44  KEPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

fertile  "cane-brake  region"  were  badly  damaged,  however,  the  most 
notable  exception  being  Conecnh  County,  where  50  per  cent,  of  the  crop 
was  lost.  In  Mareugo.  the  plants  were  completely  stripped.  From 
Dallas,  40  per  cent,  loss  was  reported.  The  worms  were  injurious  in 
Lowndes,  Montgomery,  and  Bullock.  The  Autauga  correspondent  re- 
ported "caterpillars  by  the  million."  In  Perry,  two-thirds  of  the  county 
was  swept.  Bibb  lost  one-half  and  Hall  one-fourth  of  the  crop.  Fur- 
ther north,  although  the  worms  were  numerous,  as  a  general  thing  they 
<?ame  too  late.  In  Florida,  the  crop  of  a  few  counties  was  damaged  this 
year,  but  the  injury  was  far  from  being  general.  In  Jackson  County 
they  appeared  July  1,  and  were  destructive  later.  In  Jefferson,  the  crop 
was  badly  injured,  as  also  in  Madison.  In  Columbia,  the  worms  just 
barely  put  in  an  appearance  in  September.  The  caterpillars  were  preva- 
lent in  quite  a  number  of  localities  in  Georgia,  and  did  "  some  considera- 
ble damage"  both  in  Muscogee  and  in  Harris.  In  Early,  they  riddled 
the  cotton  in  spots,  but  were  not  general.  Twiggs  reported  them  as 
being  present  in  force.  In  South  Carolina  no  damage  was  done,  the 
worms  being  seen  in  September,  but  in  small  numbers. 

With  1876  the  monthly  reports  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture 
close,  and  since  then  there  has  been  issued  an  occasional  bulletin  on  the 
-condition  of  crops.  Much  of  our  previous  matter  on  the  prevalence 
-during  each  year  since  1866  was  based  upon  data  from  these  monthly 
reports,  in  addition  to  that  furnished  by  the  1878  correspondence  and 
l>y  the  miscellaneous  articles  published  upon  cotton  insects.  As  a  re- 
sult of  the  discontinuance  of  these  reports,  the  data  for  1877  and  1878 
iire  not  as  complete  as  those  for  previous  years,  and  hardly  as  accurate. 

As  a  general  cotton-worm  year  1877  appears  to  have  been  somewhat 
worse  than  1876.  The  marked  feature  this  year  was  the  immense 
amount  of  damage  done  in  Texas,  more  particularly  in  the  southern 
portions  of  the  cotton-growing  region.  In  a  bulletin  in  July,  1877,*  we 
find  that  the  following  Texan  counties  were  already  infested:  Uvalde, 
Atascosa,  Victoria,  Brazoria,  Hardin.  and  Jasper.  The  following  is 
from  an  August  bulletin: 

The  prospect  in  Texa*  is  marked  by  the  appearance  of  the  caterpillar.  More  than 
one-half  of  the  counties  reported  are  infested,  not  seriously  as  yet,  except  in  a  few 
•cases.  In  Lavara  the  bulk  of  the  crop  is  destroyed;  in  (;<»i:«l<x,  ?.">  per  cent.,  a  com- 
plete wreck  where  preventives  were  not  used.  Poison  is  successfully  applied  by  pru- 
dent planters.  *  *  *  The  caterpillar  has  appeared  in  the  parishes  of  Saint  l.anilrtj, 
Kii-ltland,  and  <'lnib(n-nc.  in  Louisiana:  in  7Vm/.  /H/m.r.  an>'.  '',.„,,„/,.  jn  Alabama; 
•in  Columbia,  Florida;  and  in  Jirnokx,  (Jeor^iji. 

In  addition  to  the  localities  already  mentioned,  we  glean  the  following 
from  the  answers  of  the  general  circular:  In  Fayette,  Colorado,  Aus- 
tin, Waller,  Hardin,  Walker,  and  Polk,  the  caterpillar*'  were  very 
numerous;  in  Austin,  indicting  a  loss  of  .~>i)  per  cent.:  in  Hardin,  75  per 

f  In  these  bulletin*  th ••  r.-M.rN  an-  all  sent  in  before  tile  12th  of  the  month  tor  which 
they  are  published. 


HISTORY    OF    RAVAGES,  1877  AND  1878.  45 

cent. ;  and  in  Polk,  "  total  destruction."  These  reports  seein  to  make 
1877  as  bad  a  worm  year  as  Texas  has  experienced.  » 

In  Louisiana  the  damage  was  comparatively  slight.  In  addition  to 
the  parishes  already  mentioned,  some  injury  was  reported  from  East 
Feliciaua  and  Jackson.  In  Mississippi  the  worms  were  abundant  only 
in  the  southern  part  of  the  State — in  Wilkinson,  Jefferson,  Coviugtonr 
and  neighboring  counties.  In  Alabama  the  caterpillars  were  general 
but  not  very  destructive  compared  with  preceding  years.  In  Xorthern 
Florida  they  were  abundant  but  not  remarkably  destructive,  while 
Georgia  was  very  slightly  touched. 

In  the  winter  of  1877-'78,  the  bill  creating  the  cotton-insect  investi- 
gation passed  Congress,  and  in  early  summer  work  was  begun.  In 
June  the  following  Texas  reports  came  in : 

Uvalde:  Cotton-worms  appearing  iu  small  shoals.  Atascosa:  Cotton- worms  making 
their  appearance  nere.  Matagorda  :  The  caterpillar  has  appeared  in  due  course  of 
time ;  will,  get  his  share  of  the  crop.  Brazoria :  Tlie  cotton- worm  has  made  its  ap- 
pearance in  some  parts  of  our  county ;  as  yet  it  has  done  no  damage  to  the  catton. 
Victoria:  The  worms  are  playing  havoc  with  the  cotton.  Laraca:  Cotton-worm  re- 
ported in  several  localities.  Fort  Bend  :  Worms  have  made  their  appearance  in  some 
localities,  but  as  yet  have  done  no  damage.  A  mstin :  The  first  brood  of  worms  has  ap- 
peared in  several  places.  Hardin:  The  green- worm  that  always  comes  before  the 
cotton-worm  is  here  on  the  cotton ;  also,  the  fly  that  lays  the  egg  that  produces  the 
cotton-worm  is  here.  Polk:  Cc4tou-worms  in  abundance ;  farmers  are  using  Preston 
&  Roberta's  Texas  worm-destroyer  Avith  great  success.  Jasper :  Worms  are  making 
their  appearance  in  many  places,  and  if  they  come  in  great  abundance  the  cotton 
crop  will  be  a  total  failure. 

It  is  difficult  to  make  any  comparative  estimate  of  the  destruction 
from  caterpillars  in  1878,  since  in  most  parts  of  the  South  all  thought  of 
other  calamities  was  lost  in  the  fear  of  the  great  epidemic.  From  such 
data  as  we  have  been  able  to  gather,  however,  it  seems  to  have  been  the 
worst  year  since  1873,  in  all  the  Southern  cotton  States  excepting  Texas, 
where  it  was  exceeded  by  1877.  In  spite  of  the  general  early  appear- 
ance of  the  caterpillars  in  the  latter  State,  little  serious  damage  was 
done.  The  greatest  injury  seems  to  have  been  in  Matagorda,  Colorado, 
Washington,  Polk,  and  Cherokee  counties,  but  the  loss  probably  did  not 
exceed  20  per  cent,  in  any  of  these.  In  Louisiana  caterpillars  were 
prevalent.  They  were  destructive  in  East  Feliciana,  Coucordia,  Madi- 
son, Jackson,  Bienville,  Bossier,  and  Caddo  Parishes ;  more  particularly 
so  in  the  last  three  named.  Pope  County,  Arkansas,  suffered  a  loss  of 
25  per  cent.,  and  in  Crawford  they  were  nearly  as  bad.  In  Mississippi 
they  were  abundant  in  nearly  all  of  the  cotton-growing  counties  as  far 
north  as  Chickasaw,  but,  from  the  fact  that  in  this  State  were  the  head- 
quarters of  the  fever,  we  have  been  able  to  get  few  particulars  as  to 
the  abundance  of  the  worms.  In  Alabama  the  damage  was  considera- 
ble. Many  counties  report  the  presence  of  the  worms  with  greater  or 
less  loss.  The  greatest  damage  was  done  in  Monroe,  Conecuh,  Dale, 
Wilcox,  Barbour,  Lowudes,  Dallas,  Montgomery,  Macon,  Autauga, 
Perry,  Hale,  Green,  Sumter,  and  Pickens.  The  average  loss  was  about 


46  REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

from  15  to  20  per  cent.  The  correspondent  from  Pickens  county  says 
that  the  loss  wa%  one-third  on  low  lands  with  late  planting,  and  one- 
tenth  on  high  lands  with  early  planting.  In  Florida  the  damage  to 
northern  counties  was  not  great,  but  south,  in  Hillsborough,  the  cater- 
pillars were  very  destructive.  More  or  less  damage  was  done  in  Marion, 
La  Fayette,  Columbia,  Jackson,  Jefferson,  Leon,  Gadsden,  and  Santa 
Rosa,  but  in  none  was  it  excessive.  In  Georgia  the  worms  were  all  over 
the  State  towards  the  end  of  the  season,  but  in  no  locality  was  great 
damage  done.  They  were  perhaps  more  abundant  in  the  southern 
counties  of  Thomas,  Brooks,  Baker,  Mitchell,  and  Dougherty  than  else- 
where. In  South  Carolina  they  were  not  reported,  but  were  found  by 
Professor  Eiley,  in  a  short  stop  at  Columbia,  September  16. 

This  brings  the  past  history  of  the  cotton-worm  down  to  the  present 
year. 


DAMAGE    BY    YEARS    AND    BY    COUNTIES. 


47 


48 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


I     1 


§ 


TABLE    OF    LOSSES. 


49 


50 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 


4 

i  i  i     i  :  :  i  i  i  !     i     i          !:!        %  i     i  i     i  i     i  i  i 

1 

:::::•::::                :     :         1>  ::::::*«: 

1 

1M  ji  1  1  jijiu      IH    % 

1 

:  :  : 

1 

•  •          •« 

i 

% 

i 

:            "^ 

i 

e         ! 

:            % 

1 

i 

:  :     :      :     :t>  : 

io 

;              & 

i  !     *«;;*»: 

i 

:            *« 

I  i    i  ;    :  ;  ; 

jjj 

: 

:  :         :*« 

^ 

i 

i 

» 

1  •  ts  ' 

3> 
i 

\> 

i 

:.  v  j     : 

I 

*0 

i 

i 

1 

1 

;&  :   : 

I 

§ 

4444- 

:*«  :     : 

'•*& 

Counties.  1804. 

MISSISSIPPI—  Contin'd.  | 
Neshoba.T  

1 

*m? 

i  i  :  ;   i  :  •  ;     ;   i  d     i 

'  ii 

S^^ls^.slSsaJSsI^     ^fSe 

fG       J   '        •    !        !        !    ',        ! 

3 

TABLE    OF    LOSSES. 


51 


;;:;;;;;  i*  i  ^  ; 

i      |  j  |..|  i  I  :|  1  1  •  i  1  1  .[  1  i 

':;;;;;;  ;i;;\t,; 

%  •  • 

•     :     ::::•:    *«*«*» 

i  i  i  i  1  1*  ! 

i  I*  1  i  i  i 

•;;  ;;;;;;  L. 

•«  • 

8    ....         . 

t>  :::::::»     :*«« 

:«  : 

jvjj'i 

jTiTi     :  :%     :%  : 

:%  = 

!  1%  I  i     : 

2»  :      :^  :  :  :1»  : 

i"8  : 

:  :"«  : 

;IM*   jjiijii 

:**  : 

::*e-  '•  '• 

:::::::  i  •:::*«:: 

:    kj 

|*j 

;>;;;; 

i  ;*  I  !   NJJ^J 

:^  : 

::*»>::     : 

:::::::::  :*»  :: 

'%  : 

:  :i  :  :     : 

i%  i 

'.    „ 

\\ 

rfr-f 

e 
•a 

8 

i,: 

nn 

*«  :  : 

jtjtjjgjw 

::» 

:       1    ' 

Jl    *    , 

'-1         ? 

3*      { 

M||i 

a 

1  1!  !  j   ; 

Ilillllillllllllllllllllllllil 

ill>lif||fil§|t|I 

Iil^£q3ii?al^3l<^j 

52 


REPORT   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 


:*«: 


:  :  :*« 


1  111 


TABLE    OF   LOSSES. 


53 


t,  : 


ls,S< 


^ 
jjifllti 


54 


REPOET   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 


ll 


i 

0      •   « 

TABLE    OF    LOSSES 

5. 

55 

s 

«j«. 

.:.    e:« 

:  jt,^  : 

!!<» 

V* 

*  n 

:  :  : 

I 

:  i 

•? 

1-8  :  j 

:•%:*«: 

|4 

**; 

;;* 

<w 

jj* 

1 

|,:: 

:*, 

i  ** 

,S 

i 

W 

1 

.;& 

i* 

i 

i* 

:  :,» 

::«!-«: 

% 

«  i  it, 

i 

1 

: 

•  :  :  : 

•e 

:  :%  :-«  : 

~^ 

. 

:* 

% 

& 

: 

I 

:**  i 

« 

:  :  :*« 

« 

% 

j« 

i 

•A     I  rfi 

:  j%  j:j  ; 

% 

.*« 

i  :  it, 

t 

1 

:  :  :  : 

&  :t,  :i>« 

0*0 

:*«  :t, 

% 

« 

1 

t,  :*e-=8  : 

1* 

* 

- 

1 

•  e  • 

,0  «>     • 

[LL 

i 

:  :«  i  : 

:« 

:  :t, 

1 

::*«:: 

1 

:  :* 

§ 

:::*«,:: 

i 

I 

Counties. 

TEXAS. 

TJvalde  

y 

: 

|j 

i 

iUd 

7   : 

1 
1 

il 

1 

S| 

iJUjji. 

HillilJ 

1  liii 

ml 

Hcc!z;c>««) 

|j| 

56 


| 

REPOJ 

IT   UPON 

COTTON    INSECTS. 

i 

;;;;•;. 

:  :  :  :«    •« 

i 

•e 

-  i  i  i  ;<"  !  i 

:::::: 

:  :  :  : 

:  .  :  : 

^ 

•i 

.  :  : 

:  :«  : 

1 

j 

i 

*C 

• 

0.0  o  8  «« 

i  :tt 

:  :*, 

II;"8 

* 

^  :  :  : 

s 

!  «  i  ! 

: 

1 

TTV 

^- 

-T^~ 

-- 

i 

't>  •  ' 

*• 

•«»«  :  :  : 

'*  t>    ' 

i 

t» 

...... 

:*»  :  : 

•  •  a 

I 

i     :*» 

| 

i 

jjjJJ^ 

i 
i 
1 

! 

TEXAS—  Continued. 

. 

1 

j 

\ 
1 

a    ;    • 

Oil 
ill! 

Eaat  Baton  Rouge  
Iberville  
Tangipahoa  
Washington  

Wf»t,  Ffilif.iana 

jj  j 

ij      g         |       \j 

Jackson  .  .  . 
Bienville  .  . 
Richland  .  . 
Red  River. 

a* 

TABLE  OF  LOSSES: 

:  :  :      :           :        ::::::::  :&«            *«*«::      :i^ 

57 

::*«::*«::::  :t> 

— 

:     :Vo 

3             \ 

13    ; 

H" 

•!~  Hj  H 

^ 

- 

•    oo     i  i  i  i     :•« 

Mi; 

»- 

-010   i  i 

«  :«..*,  ;  ;    0  j 

j 

: 

i  i  i  i 

:  o-e   j-e 

- 

4 

:•     i  :'•=> 

!«,  :«  :«,„     :  :    , 

: 

::;•:: 

i  ; 

\ 

.13 

:•« 

& 

0 

:*«^ 

::*«:« 

0  i 

4 

!-* 

!        "°  i 

^ 

& 

O    O 

>& 

w  :  ': 

:^  : 

:         *  :  : 

:*  :  : 

:  i"0 

\ 

o  : 

% 

•>  : 

* 

4f 

illlsii      s 

!i 

iJ 

i 

5i^.l 

V 

I1! 

kmson  
ite  

II 

II! 

ii 

\ 

^  ? 

k 

i 

i§ii 

5a3J 

58 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


00 

I 

I 

* 

ts 

;  0V 

* 

1 

*« 

*« 

* 

:> 

:* 

*, 

«i- 

1 

% 

^. 

u 

:*« 

k«k» 

i 

• 

i 

« 

* 

•i 

% 

| 

i^ 

2 

•* 

„ 

'"« 

\ 

1 

•* 

% 

t 

:t* 

1 

00 

s 

CO 

* 

, 

1 

g 

<= 

^ 

« 

« 

-8«> 

t 

c 

% 

.« 

e  ; 

e  » 

H 

ft 

•8    ; 

1 

* 

8    • 

tt 

< 

>  » 

s 

1     ' 

• 

•^S  3 

1 

1 

* 

tt 

i 

1  -o  « 

1 

A 

«s 

< 

;*° 

-a 

t 

£ 

1) 

t 

&  : 

% 

*, 

>*»*» 

1 

* 

» 

h 

1 

>£ 

-0 

*« 

1 

)t.1» 

s 

*« 

| 

* 

^ 

t 

*,  *, 

1 

: 

1 

t 

;  Jn 

. 

i 

1 

^ 

1 

t 

*« 

1 

-7- 

- 

;    ; 

* 

•-T- 

•s 

:t> 

i 

*c 

t 

1 

* 

t 

i 

i 

i 

:  :t> 

1 

< 

1 

fl 

1 

1 

MISSISSIPPI—  Got 
"Washington  

I 

! 

\ 

i 

li 

5*2 

7 

il 

Talabusha  
Chickasaw  

i 

I 

I 

\ 

•:. 

« 

PH£ 

'i 

1 

J 

P 

a 

i 

| 

P 

| 

a 

'- 

> 

11 

L 

I 

Crenshaw  
Pike  

Monroe  
Clarke  .  .  . 

Choctaw  

j 
£ 

i 

TABLE    OF   LOSSES. 


59 


j .0.0  e*>  e 


.ee.c»iio.o< 


>AAA  a  e  e  e  e 


:*»*»  : 


fct 


60 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 


TABLE    OF   LOSSES. 


61 


: 

:  : 

I 

^ 

•« 

^ 

-_ 

:% 

* 

4 

1  I 

^ 

— 

^ 

; 

-s 

t& 

o^i 

\ 

! 

: 

\ 

c 

« 

•c 

:  i^ 

•% 

\ 

- 

- 

i  • 

% 

% 

~-  

•{ 

:  * 

;l 

E 

D 

' 

: 

i 

3< 

g| 

? 

> 

i, 

i»i 

1^ 

I 

1 

- 

:  c 

•- 

±  i  i 

§ 

-1 

•{t 

1 

1 

i 

! 

i] 

1! 

111.1311111 
sapsw* 


5o^JW<Sl^j5ll5:l 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 


3-e.o          -sts-a-a 


STATISTICS    OF    LOSSES.  63 

STATISTICS   OF  LOSSES. 

Iii  estimating  the  amount  of  injury  to  the  cotton  crop  of  the  entire 
cotton-growing  section,  or  a  single  State,  for  a  given  year  or  a  series  of 
years,  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  obtain  anything  more  than  an  approxi- 
mate result.  In  the  first  place,  the  area  under  cultivation  is  so  large, 
and  the  localities  of  severest  injury  so  scattered,  even  in  the  same  county, 
that  the  record  of  a  single  observer,  or  even  two  or  three,  will  hardly  suf- 
fice to  give  the  true  average  for  the  whole  county,  and  the  same  remarks 
will  apply  as  well  in  an  attempt  to  make  up  the  State  average.  There 
are  many  minor  considerations  entering  into  the  calculation,  which,  if 
not  carefully  weighed,  will  tend  to  perceptibly  change  the  final  figures. 

In  numbers  of  instances  we  have  reported,  for  a  given  year,  the  loss 
of  the  entire  crop,  which,  perhaps,  for  the  whole  county  may  only  repre- 
sent a  loss  of  60  to  70  per  cent.  As  will  be  shown  hereafter,  the  more 
forward  the  crop  the  less  liablility  there  is  to  its  being  overtaken  by  dis- 
aster. If,  however,  the  crop  is  grown  upon  low,  wet  land,  or  has  been 
subject  to  an  undue  amount  of  rainfall,  or  worse,  has  had  only  careless 
or  imperfect  cultivation,  the  percentage  of  loss  will  be  much  higher  than 
in  more  favorable  localities,  or  under  more  favorable  conditions,  and  an 
estimate  based  on  returns  from  such  localities  would  be  far  from  the  cor- 
rect one.  This  is  shown  by  reports  from  different  parts  of  the  same 
county,  one  planter  placing  the  loss  at  one-third,  while  another  states 
that  the  damage  will  hardly  reach  a  twentieth,  which  may  be  called  a 
"  slight  injury." 

In  some  years  the  cotton  is  affected  by  rust  to  a  greater  or  less 
extent. 

In  Lowndes  County,  Alabama,  in  1866  there  was  a  loss  of  30  per  cent., 
owing  to  the  lateness  of  the  cotton  over  a  considerable  area,  caused  by 
old  seed  having  been  planted ;  and  in  the  same  county,  in  1873,  wet 
weather  and  the  worms  together  caused  almost  a  complete  failure ;  the 
wet  weather  was  responsible,  in  this  case,  for  22  per  cent,  of  the  loss. 

In  portions  of  Louisiana,  in  1841,  the  greatest  losses  resulted  from  in- 
jury to  quality  rather  than  quantity — from  litter  and  excrement  dropped 
by  worms  upon  the  open  bolls.  Frequently  other  insects  are  responsi- 
ble for  a  portion  of  the  damage — the  aphis,  the  cut- worm  or  the  boll- 
worm;  and  while  their  injuries  are,  comparatively  speaking,  small,  still 
they  should  be  taken  into  account  as  far  as  possible.  In  consideration 
of  all  these  causes  of  loss,  as  they  are  more  than  likely  to  be  charged 
to  the  account  of  the  cotton-worm  by  the  local  observers,  after  getting 
as  correct  an  estimate  as  possible  from  data  furnished,  it  is  necessary  to 
place  the  percentage  somewhat  lower  to  be  within  bounds. 

YEARS   OF  LOSSES. 

Many  of  the  "oldest  inhabitants"  remember  the  year  1825  as  one  of 
severe  injury,  the  reports  varying  from  33  per  cent,  to  almost  total  de- 


64  REPORT   UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

struction.  As  an  example,  a  record  of  10  bales  to  500  acres  is  given  as 
an  average  for  Conecuh  County,  Alabama.  In  1846  and  ]847  the  figures 
again  run  high,  and  are  given  from  33.3  to  G6.6  per  cent.  The  returns 
for  the  years  that  follow,  up  to  the  period  of  the  war,  are  quite  meager, 
but  still  sufficient  to  show  that  the  worms  were  at  work  in  places,  some 
years  doing  considerable  damage.  For  the  years  since  the  war  the  re- 
ports point  to  severe  losses,  the  figures  probably  ranging  highest  in  1873, 
when  50  per  cent,  of  injury  is  common,  and  .even  66  to  90  per  cent, 
quoted.  Mr.  P.  D.  Bowles,  of  Evergreen,  Ala.,  gives  as  the  general  aver- 
age for  all  years  since  1868,  50  per  cent.,  which  may  be  correct  for  south- 
ern sections  of  the  State,  though  very  high  for  the  State  as  a  whole. 

In  tabulating  the  returns  for  years  since  the  war,  reports  of  "complete 
failure"  or  "almost  total  loss"  are  frequently  found  from  nearly  all  the 
Gulf  States,  and  representing  almost  every  year.  Statements  of  50  to  75 
per  cent,  occur  more  frequently,  the  greater  losses  having  been  suffered 
in  Texas  and  Florida,  although  in  the  lower  central  counties  of  Alabama, 
particularly  upon  what  is  known  as  the  black  lands  or  "black  belt,"  the 
destructiveness  has  been  severe  in  all  years  of  insect  prevalence.  A  los& 
of  one-third  is  of  common  occurrence;  indeed  a  majority  of  the  returns 
indicate  for  bad  years,  in  localities  of  heaviest  production,  a  general 
average  of  25  to  33  per  cent.  Of  course  the  percentage  for  the  more 
northern  portions  of  the  State,  or  those  portions  where  cotton  is  less 
generally  grown,  are  so  very  much  lower  that  it  must  make  considerable 
difference  with  the  general  average  for  the  whole  area  of  cotton  produc- 
tion. 

The  following  extracts  of  replies  to  a  circular  sent  out  by  the  depart- 
ment will  give  some  idea  of  the  worst  years  of  injury  from  the  cotton- 
worm,  and  amount  of  loss  in  particular  localities : 

Woodville,  Wilkinson  County,  Mississippi.— In  1825  and  1846  fully  50  per  cent. ;  in  1867, 
1868,  and  1873,  probably  25  per  cent.  Many  other  years,  and  for  several  successive 
years,  in  certain  localities,  I  have  known  the  crop  wholly  destroyed  in  July,  so  that  not 
enough  seed  was  matured  to  plant  the  next  crop. 

Alleyton,  Colorado  County,  Texas.— One  bale  to  100  acres  in  1867. 

Moscow,  Polk  County,  Texas.— In  1867  and  1873,  the  loss  was  total ;  in  1877,  about  75 
per  cent. 

Texarkana,  Miller  County,  Arkansas.— During  the  years  1865,  1866,  and  1867,  the  worms 
destroyed  at  least  25  per  cent,  of  the  crop  each  year ;  and  in  some  portions  of  the  Red 
River  lauds  the  entire  crop  on  many  plantations. 

Evergreen,  Conecuh  County,  Alabama. — In  1825  the  oldest  farmers  now  living  estimate 
the  loss  at  98  per  cent. ;  loss  in  1867,  at  least  66.6  per  cent. ;  in  1868,  25  per  cent. ;  in 
1873,  about  40  per  cent.,  some  placing  it  at  75  and  some  90  per  cent. ;  in  1874,  about  the 
same  as  1873.  In  1874  Mr.  C.  Drumond  gathered  900  pounde  of  seed-cotton  from  14 
acres,  which  would  have  produced  1,000  pounds  per  acre. 

Waterboro,  Colleton  County,  South  Carolina. — About  three-fourths  of  a  crop  in  most 
years,  when  worms  have  been  general,  and  in  some  neighborhoods  seven-eighths. 

Burkville,  Loumdes  County,  Alabama. — In  1873  the  loss  was  70  per  cent.  This  year, 
[1878]  on  the  bottom  and  lime  lands,  a  loss  of  20  per  cent,  is  claimed. 

Columbia,  Brazoria  County,  Texas. — During  many  years  three-fourths  of  the  crop  is 
destroyed. 


EXAMPLES    OF   LIGHT   AND   HEAVY   DAMAGES.  65 

Ashwood  Station,  Wilkinson  County,  Mississippi.— In  1873,  40  to  50  per  cent. 

Station  Creek,  Covington  County,  Mississippi.— In  1847  and  1848,  probably  50  per  cent. 

Denison's  Landing,  Perry  County,  Tennessee.— It  is  quite  difficult  to  give  even  an  ap- 
proximation of  the  loss  sustained  in  the  State  or  county  during  years  of  the  severest 
visitation;  for  while  old, large  farms  have  lost  maybe  50  to  75  per  cent.,  new,  small 
farms,  inclosed  by  dense  forests,  have  suffered  very  frequently  none  at  all. 

Isabella,  Worth  County.  Georgia. — In  a  bad  worm  year,  wet  and  cool,  they  destroy  all 
the  top  cotton,  and  necessarily  it  is  cut  off  one-half. 

Faunsdale,  Marengo  County,  Alabama. — In  1872  and  1873  the  cotton  crop  was  cut  short 
one-half. 

Tionus,  Bibb  County,  Alabama.— In  1868,  about  one-third;  in  1871,  about  one-half;  in 
1872,  one-fourth ;  in  1873,  one-eighth ;  and  in  1876,  one-half. 

Haickinsrille,  Barbour  County,  Alabama.— In  1873,  I  am  satisfied  I  lost  one-half  of 
my  crop  ;  in  1868  and  1874,  one- sixth ;  and  in  1878,  one-fifth. 

Gilmer,  Upshur  County,  Texas. — Two-thirds  during  the  years  of  greatest  damage, 
though  all  fields  are  not  attacked  alike ;  it  depends  upon  the  locality  of  the  field  and 
maturity  of  the  crop. 

Millheim,  Austin  County,  Texas.— In  the  year  1863,  the  worm  having  been  very  de- 
structive, destroyed  about  25  to  30  per  cent,  of  the  crop.  In  1868,  the  first  appearance 
of  the  worm  having  been  the  earliest  on  record,  the  crop  was  nearly  destroyed  the  first 
part  of  July,  and  injured  more  than  50  per  cent. 

Morrison's  Mills,  Alachua  County,  Florida.— In  some  fields  I  have  seen  four-fifths  de- 
stroyed ;  in  others,  not  exceeding  one-fifth,  though  both  were  entirely  eaten  over  by  the 
worm.  But  I  think  it  safe  to  say  the  destruction  generally  amounted  to  one-third  in 
bad  years. 

Milton,  Florida.— In  the  black  lands  of  Montgomery  and  Lowndes  Counties,  Alabama, 
the  worm  rarely  if  ever  destroyed  less  than  one-half,  and  often  three-fourths  of  the 
crop. 

Saint  FrancisriUe,  West  Felidana  Parish,  Louisiana. — In  1846  the  cotton  crops  here 
were  cut  short  from  50  to  60  per  cent.  In  the  last  fourteen  years  the  destructive  years 
were  particularly  1867,  1871,  1872,  and  1873. 

Waverly,  Walker  County,  Texas.— I  cannot  make  any  attempt  at  estimates  of  losses, 
as  I  have  never  kept  any  data ;  but  millions  of  dollars  have  been  lost,  and  many  farmers 
brought  to  ruin  and  poverty. 

Turning  from  the  gloomy  side  of  the  question  there  are  returns  of 
"  slight  injury"  from  many  localities.  In  North  Carolina  the  worms  are 
so  late  in  making  their  appearance,  the  planters  generally  consider  them 
a  benefit,  as  they  eat  off  the  top  leaves,  and  allowing  the  sun  and  air  to 
come  to  the  lower  bolls,  ripen,  and  cause  them  to  open  better.  This  is 
likewise  the  case  in  some  locations,  as  far  south  as  Louisiana  and  Texas; 
a  correspondent  in  Waller  County,  in  the  latter  State,  attributing 
the  damage  to  a  too  favorable  growtli  of  the  plant,  in  which  case  the 
worms,  by  stripping  the  leaves,  benefited  rather  than  injured  the  crop. 
It  is  not  unusual  to  find  reports  of  slight  loss  in  counties  adjoining  those 
where  the  injury  has  been  considerable.  We  give  a  few  returns  as  ex- 
amples of  slight  injury: 

FayetteriUc,  Cumberland  County,  North  Carolina. — So  late  in  making  their  appearance 
in  this  latitude,  it  is  doubtful  if  they  ever  do  any  injury. 

Buena  Vista,  Marion  County,  Georgia. — The  losses  from  worms  in  this  county  have 
been  very  small,  not  one  bale  out  of  1,000. 

Atauquarille,Autauqua  County,  Alabama. — My  general  impression  is  that  in  the  aggre- 
gate the  losses  have  not  been  considerable. 
5c  I 


66  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

Greenville,  Hunt  County,  Texas. — The  loss  in  our  county  was  very  slight ;  *  *  * 
few  fields  were  visited,  and  those  in  isolated  spots,  where  the  plant  grew  more  luxu- 
riantly ;  and  only  the  upper  branches,  which  were  tender,  were  attacked. 

Other  examples  could  be  given,  but  these  will  suffice. 

GENERAL    ESTIMATES   OF  LOSS. 

Iii  the  report  of  the  statistician  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture 
for  1877,  the  loss  by  the  cotton-worm  was  estimated  for  that  year  at 
$15,000,000,  much  the  larger  portion  in  Texas,  though  the  injury  was 
considerable  as  far  east  as  the  cotton  belt  of  Alabama.*  Notwithstand- 
ing this  great  loss,  the  year  was  one  of  unusual  harvest,  and  with  this 
consideration  in  view,  the  figures  offer  a  suggestion  as  to  the  fearful 
amount  of  damage  that  must  follow  in  a  year  of  general  visitation. 

In  the  Entomologist's  IJeport,  in  the  annual  report  of  the  Department 
of  Agriculture  for  1873  (p.  164),  there  appears  a  general  estimate,  also 
furnished  by  the  statistician,  which  placed  the  amount  of  damage  at 
possibly  half  a  million  bales,  in  years  of  insect  prevalence.  One-fourth 
of  a  million  bales  he  considers  a  slight  infliction,  and  yet  at  $100  per 
bale,  the  loss  would  be  equal  in  round  numbers  to  $25,000,000. 

A  number  of  general  estimates  have  been  given  by  local  observers  in 
reply  to  a  cotton- worm  circular  recently  sent  out  by  this  department, 
which  in  the  main  are  not  far  out  of  the  way.  Mr.  J.  F.  Culver,  Union 
Springs,  Ala.,  estimates  the  loss  in  Bullock  County,  at  about  5,000 
bales,  which  amounts  to  $250,000  at  the  rate  of  $50  per  bale.  Mr.  H. 
Hawkins,  of  Hawkinsville,  Ala.,  who  lost  one-half  of  his  crop  in  1873 
and  one-fifth  in  1878,  makes  a  rough  estimate  for  Barbour  County,  in 
most  years  of  $50,000.  For  the  year  1878,  the  losses  to  Pope  County, 
Arkansas,  from  cotton- worms  are  given  in  round  numbers  by  Mr.  T.  S. 
Edwards,  of  Gum  Log,  at  $100,000 ;  and  a  glance  at  figures  in  the 
Ninth  Census  Report,  keeping  in  view  the  enormous  increase  in  cot- 
ton productions  in  Texas  and  Arkansas  since  18G9,  would  seein  to  bear 
out  the  statement. 

RATIO  OF  LOSS  BETWEEN  EARLY  AND  LATE  CROPS. 

While  the  date  of  appearance  of  the  worm  has  much  to  do  with  the 
amount  of  damage  to  a  crop — an  appearance  in  July,  August,  or  Sep- 
tember, in  parts  of  Texas,  amounting  to  75,  50,  and  25  per  cent,  of 
loss,  respectively — still  upon  plantations  where  the  cotton  is  late  in 
coming  to  maturity,  the  greatest  losses  may  be  expected,  generally 
speaking ;  and  any  causes  that  tend  to  retard  the  growth  of  the  plants, 
only  serve  to  increase  the  percentages  of  injury.  In  former  years,  in 
the  eastern  part  of  Mississippi,  there  was  a  certainty  of  most  of  the 
blossoms  "making"  that  came  by  the  10th  of  September;  now  they 
cannot  be  .counted  upon  after  August  1.  In  the  center  of  the  cotton 
belt  in  Alabama,  as  a  rule,  when  a  good  stand  has  been  secured  early 

*  Annual  Report  for  1877,  p.  156. 


ESTIMATES  OF  LOSS  BY  STATES.  67 

in  the  season,  the  bulk  ot  cotton  generally  forms  and  matures  before 
the  appearance  of  the  worm  in  great  numbers,  and  the  loss  is  small, 
while  in  late  fields,  as  high  as  66  per  cent,  has  been  lost. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Galloway,  of  Montgomery  County,  Alabama,  gives  the  fol- 
lowing as  his  opinion  upon  the  subject : 

When  the  crop  is  well  advanced,  the  land  being  well  prepared,  and  planted  just  as 
early  as  the  season  will  permit,  cultivated  well  and  rapidly,  and,  as  the  saying  is, 
pushed  from  the  word  "  go,"  the  loss  is  much  less  than  when  planted  late  and  poorly 
cultivated. 

Mr.  David  Lee,  of  Mount  Willing,  Lowndes  County,  Ala.,  says : 

If  the  season  is  favorable,  the  cotton  planted  early,  and  well  cultivated,  much  is 

gained,  and  the  loss  would  be  light,  as  there  would  be  less  for  the  worms  to  destroy. 

But  if  the  spring  is  cool  and  wet,  and  the  summer  wet,  the  crop  will,  of  necessity,  be 

badly  cultivated,  and  consequently  will  be  late  ;  under  such  disadvantages  the  crop 

would  be  cut  off  one-third. 

ESTIMATES  OF  LOSS  BY  STATES. 

In  estimating  the  total  amount  of  losses  from  the  ravages  of  cotton- 
worms  in  the  United  States,  the  data  extends  over  such  a  long  period — 
from  1825  to  1878 — we  are  only  able  to  form  a  general  average  for  a 
series  of  years.  In  calculating  the  quantity  destroyed,  an  average  crop 
of  the  past  fourteen  years,  which  is  only  a  little  larger  than  an  average 
crop  of  fourteen  years  prior  to  1861,  is  taken  as  the  basis.  Such  average 
is  an  increase  of  about  25  per  cent,  upon  the  crop  of  1869,  a  little  in  ex- 
cess of  three  and  a  quarter  millions  of  bales. 

In  estimating  for  the  States,  especially  where  the  data  is  incomplete, 
as  it  necessarily  must  be,  the  localities  of  heaviest  production  must  be 
considered  and  due  allowance  made  for  counties  producing  only  a  tenth, 
or  perhaps,  a  twentieth  as  much,  on  account  of  greater  isolation  of  the 
plantations.  A  loss  of  25  per  cent,  in  Dallas  County,  Alabama,  as  an 
example,  would  represent  in  round  numbers  a  decrease  in  value  of  the 
crop  to  the  extent  of  $360,000,  while  the  same  percentage  of  injury  for 
the  same  year  in  Marion  County,  would  represent  a  loss  of  but  $7,000. 
It  is  therefore  necessary,  after  a  percentage  of  injury  has  been  calcu- 
lated from  the  data  in  hand,  to  study  location  and  the  amount  of  cotton 
there  produced  in  favorable  years,  and  allowing  a  small  deduction  for 
other  causes  of  loss  that  may  not  have  been  noted,  to  strike  a  general 
average  for  the  whole  State,  which  will  be  found  from  5  to  10  per  cent, 
lower. 

Although  the  losses  in  recent  years  have  been  more  severely  felt  in 
Texas  than  in  any  other  State,  we  select  Alabama  to  illustrate  the 
method  of  obtaining  an  estimate,  partly  from  the  fact  that  it  represents 
the  average  of  injury,  but  more  particularly  because  the  fullest  returns 
have  been  received  from  this  section  of  the  cotton-growing  region.  These 
returns  have  been  received  from  the  cotton  belt  of  heaviest  producing 
counties,  thirteen  in  number,  as  follows :  Hall,  Sumpter,  Marengo,  Perry, 


68  REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

Wilcox,  Monroe,  Lowndes,  Montgomery,  Bullock,  Pickens,  Greene, 
Crenshaw,  and  Conecuh,  the  last  four  lying  just  outside  the  lines  of 
heaviest  production,  as  indicated  in  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  for  1876.* 

Montgomery  County  produced  in  1869,  according  to  the  Mnth  Census, 
25,000  bales  in  round  numbers ;  add  25  per  cent,  to  bring  this  production 
up  to  an  average  of  14  years,  and  the  figures  are  31,500  bales.  From 
the  reports  of  local  observers,  we  find  a  fair  estimate  for  a  destructive 
year  would  be  30  per  cent,  for  the  county,  or  9,450  bales.  Taking  the 
percentages  of  loss  in  the  other  12  counties,  in  the  same  manner,  and 
finding  the  number  of  bales  they  represent,  the  sum  total  of  loss  in  the 
counties  named  above  is  found  to  be  56,790;  dividing  this  decimally  by 
the  total  crop  of  the  13  counties  for  an  average  year  (or  224,700  bales), 
we  find  the  average  percentage  of  loss  to  be  25.2.  But  this  percentage 
cannot  be  taken  as  correct  in  regard  to  the  State  as  a  whole,  as  these  13 
counties  produce  two-fifths  of  the  cotton  grown  in  Alabama,  the  other 
three-fifths  representing  51  counties,  the  larger  number  of  which  lie 
above  the  center  of  the  State.  Here  the  plantations  are  not  so  liable  to 
attack,  owing  to  their  greater  isolation,  or  from  their  higher  latitude 
cannot  suffer  as  much  when  attacked,  as  the  worms  are  sure  to  appear 
later,  and  for  this  portion  of  the  State  a  fair  estimate  of  loss  would  be 
12.5,  or  in  round  numbers  39,000  bales!  This  added  to  the  loss  in  the 
cotton  belt  gives  a  total  of  95,790  bales,  upon  a  crop  of  536,000. 

The  average  of  14  years  for  Alabama,  at  the  rate  of  $50  per  bale, 
which  is  low  for  a  series  of  years,  gives  us  the  startling  amount  of 
$4,987,000,  or  nearly  five  millions,  as  the  destruction  in  Alabama  for  a 
single  year,  when  the  worms  are  numerous.  Startling  as  the  figures 
may  seem  to  those  unacquainted  with  cotton- worm  visitations,  they 
doubtless  would  be  found  below  the  real  amount  of  loss  could  we  by  any 
means  ascertain  it  with  certainty. 

In  Georgia,  the  percentage  of  injury  for  the  whole  State  is  a  little  lower, 
or  16.5  per  cent.  Sixteen  cotton-growing  counties,  representing  about 
one-fifth  of  the  productions  for  the  whole  number,  give  a  loss  of  17,972 
bales  out  of  71,600,  or  25.1  per  cent,  of  injury.  For  the  remaining  four- 
fifths,  or  403,000  bales,  15  per  cent,  is  a  high  average.  Making  60,450,  or 
a  total  for  the  State  of  78,422  bales  out  of  474,600,  and  a  loss  in  value 
equal  to  $3,921,000. 

For  Mississippi  the  percentage  of  loss  for  the  whole  State  is  17,  or 
123,000  bales,  out  of  an  average  crop  of  760,000.  Here  the  figures  show 
24  per  cent,  as  the  loss  for  a  little  over  a  third  of  the  State,  in  counties 
of  heaviest  production,  with  15  per  cent,  for  the  remaining  two-thirds. 
Total  loss,  $6,150,000. 

In  making  the  calculations  for  Louisiana,  where  there  has  been  a 
greater  increase  in  cotton  production  for  a  number  of  years  past,  the 
figures  of  the  Ninth  Census  must  be  raised  about  two-fifths,  instead  of 

*  Report  of  the  Statistician,  p.  120.     See,  also,  map  facing  title  page. 


SUMMARY    OF    LOSSES.  69 

one-fourth,  to  get  a  proper  average.  This  gives  438,700  bales  as  the  en- 
tire crop  of  the  State,  and  the  total  average  loss  for  all  counties  is  placed 
at  20  per  cent.,  a  noticeable  increase  over  those  States  lying  to  the  east- 
ward, or  89,740  bales,  worth  $4,487,000. 

The  height  of  cotton-worin  devastation  culminates  in  Texas,  28  per 
cent,  representing  the  loss  for  the  whole  State.  In  18  counties,  growing 
about  two  fifths  of  the  cotton  produced,  the  percentage  of  loss  is  35  per 
cent.,  or  more  than  a  third,  with  20  per  cent,  for  the  remaining  two-thirds. 
Cotton  production  has  increased  to  a  still  greater  extent  here  than  in  other 
States  since  1869,  and  one-half  must  be  added  to  the  census  figures  which 
gives,  in  round  numbers,  525,000  bales  as  a  fair  average  for  14  years,  and 
28  per  cent,  places  the  loss  for  the  State  at  198,125  bales.  Texas  then  suf- 
fers in  a  fear  of  greatest  injury,  a  loss  of  at  least  25,000  bales  more  than 
any  other  single  State ;  and  the  sum  total  foots  up  $7,406,000. 

Florida  must  take  the  lowest  rank  in  the  amount  of  cotton  produced, 
yet  her  percentage  of  destruction  by  worms  must  be  rated  between  that 
of  Louisiana  and  Texas,  or  at  24  per  cent.  Out  of  an  annual  production 
(average)  of  49,739  bales,  the  devastation  amounts  to  12,000  bales,  re- 
ducing the  money  value  of  the  crop  $600,000. 

In  the  northern  tier  of  cotton  States  the  losses  are  small.  In  North 
Carolina  it  is  a  question  if  the  injury  is  not  more  than  compensated  in 
the  benefit  derived  from  the  stripping  of  the  leaves  where  the  vegetation 
is  rank  and  the  plants  are  unable  to  mature  the  bolls.  As  all  the  evi- 
dence is  on  the  side  of  benefit  we  shall  leave  the  State  out  of  the  calcu- 
lation, as  the  injury  can  be  but  a  trifle  at  the  most. 

In  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  and  Arkansas  the  losses  are  small  from 
the  attacks  of  cotton -worms,  although  there  are  other  causes  that  some- 
times operate  unfavorably  against  the  crops.  After  a  careful  considera- 
tion of  the  damage  in  these  States,  the  percentages  are  set  down  as  fol- 
lows :  South  Carolina,  5  per  cent.,  or  11,225  bales  out  of  a  crop  of  224,500 
bales ;  loss,  $560,000.  Tennessee,  5  per  cent.,  or  8,365  bales  out  of  a 
crop  of  147,300 ;  loss,  $418,000.  Arkansas,  8  per  cent,,  or  27,760  bales 
out  of  a  crop  of  347,000 ;  loss,  $1,380,000. 

SUMMARY. 

Any  causes  tending  to  retard  the  growth  of  the  cotton  plants  only 
make  the  destruction  of  a  larger  percentage  of  the  crop  more  certain  in 
unfavorable  cotton- worm  years.  On  the  contrary,  upon  those  planta- 
tions where  an  early  stand  is  secured,  and  everything  is  pushed  from 
the  start,  with  exemption  from  other  causes  of  injury,  only  a  small  pro- 
portion of  the  crop  is  destroyed. 

Locality,  too,  has  much  to  do  with  increasing  the  percentages  of  loss. 
In  localities  of  heaviest  production,  where  the  plantations  are  large  and 
are  near  together,  should  the  season  be  a  little  earlier,  the  losses  are 
almost  double  those  in  more  isolated  regions,  and  even  in  the  same  coun- 
ties location  has  much  to  do  with  raising  or  lowering  the  percentages. 


70 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 


From  the  few  extracts  given  it  is  shown  that  in  years  of  severe  injury 
33,  50, 75,  or  even  98  per  cent,  of  the  entire  crop  may  be  destroyed  upon 
some  plantations,  while  others  escape  with  trifling  injury.  In  the  States 
lying  to  the  extreme  southward,  as  Florida  and  Texas,  we  find  the  highest 
percentages  of  loss  ;  and  only  a  little  lower  rate  for  the  cotton  belt, 
where  the  ratio  of  loss  increases  from  east  to  west,  commencing  with 
Georgia  at  16  per  cent.,  and  ending  with  Texas  at  28  per  cent.  In  the 
northern  tier  of  States  the  percentages  are  shown  to  be  very  low,  North 
Carolina  planters  generally  believing  the  worm  to  be  a  blessing  rather 
than  a  curse,  by  removing  superabundant  foliage. 

The  method  of  estimating  the  amounts  of  loss  for  each  State  has  been 
fully  explained,  and  the  figures  presented  both  for  number  of  bales  and 
money  value j  it  now  only  remains  to  present  these  figures  in  tabular 
form,  and  the  whole  subject  is  before  the  reader  in  the  most  available 
shape  tor  study  or  perusal. 


States. 

Percentages  of  loss  for 
worst  years. 

&2~ 

t| 

Kl 
P 

Losses.  —  Average 
for  worst  years, 
iu  bales. 

1 

ll 

§ 

a 

> 

1 
W 

.*s 
1 

«4 

South  Carolina 

5 
16.5 

24 
17.8 
17 
20 
28 
8 
5 

224,  500 
474,  COO 
49,  700 
536,  700 
706,  000 
438,  700 
525,  000 
347,  000 
147,  000 

11,  225 
78,  422 
12,  000 
95,  790 
123,  070 
89,  740 
148,  125 
27,  760 
8,305 

$560,  000 
3,  912,  000 
600,  000 
4,  789,  000 
6,150,000 
4,  487,  000 
7,  406,  000 
1,  380,  000 
418,  000 

25.1 

15 

Florida                                 

25.2 
24 

12.5 
15 

35 

20 

Tennessee  

Total 

17.2 

3,  449,  200 

594,  497 

29,  711,  000 

The  terms  "highest"  and  "lowest,"  in  the  columns  devoted  to  per- 
centage of  loss,  do  not  refer  to  the  greatest  amount  of  injury,  or  the  re- 
verse, inflicted  in  individual  localities,  but  to  a  general  average  for  the 
principal  counties  of  heaviest  production  on  the  one  hand,  on  the  average 
for  the  remainder  of  the  State  on  the  other.  The  average  for  the  State 
as  a  whole  appears  in  the  third  column. 

The  result  shows  a  possible  loss  of  $30,000,000  in  years  of  general 
prevalence  of  the  worm,  and,  as  these  visitations  are  becoming  more 
frequent,  it  is  probable  that  the  real  losses  from  the  cotton  caterpillar 
are  equivalent  to  an  average  of  $15,000,000  to  $20,000,000  annually  for 
the  entire  period  since  the  war.  There  is  much  evidence  also  to  show 
that  the  losses  were  equally  disastrous  prior  to  1861. 

It  should  be  stated  that  Virginia,  the  Indian  Territory,  and  some  other 
States,  produce  a  small  amount  of  cotton,  which,  with  the  productions 
of  North  Carolina,  are  not  included  in  the  above  figures.  It  should  also 
be  borne  in  mind  that  while  the  quantities  are  assumed  as  State  aver- 
ages for  the  period  since  the  war,  they  are  approximately  correct,  suffi- 
ciently so  for  the  purposes  of  this  exposition. 


THE    COTTON- WORM   IN    OTHER    COUNTRIES.  71 

Fifty  dollars  has  been  assumed  as  the  price  of  a  bale  of  cotton,  though 
an  average  of 'fourteen  years  would  raise  these  figures  considerably. 
The  plantation  prices,  from  1865  to  1870,  ranged  from  40  cents  per  pound 
down  to  12  cents;  or,  per  bale,  from  $180  to  $60;  and  cotton  is  now  sold 
upon  the  plantation  at  $40.  Our  estimate,  therefore,  of  $50  per  bale, 
is  only  an  average  for  the  last  eight  years. 

Of  course  the  percentage  of  loss,  as  given  in  the  preceding  pages, 
cannot  be  demonstrated  beyond  possibility  of  cavil;  the  aim  has  been  to 
make  them  too  low,  rather  than  a  possible  exaggeration. 

THE  COTTON-WORM  IN  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 

As  would  be  inferred  from  the  discussion  at  the  beginning  of  this  chap- 
ter, the  larva  of  Aletia  argillacea  attacks  cotton  only  in  the  cotton-grow- 
ing regions  of  North  and  South  America  and  in  the  intervening 
islands.  There  was,  indeed,  a  rumor  that  went  the  rounds  of  the  press 
some  years  ago  to  the  effect  that  the  cotton- worm  had  made  its  appear- 
ance in  Egypt  shortly  after  an  importation  of  American  seed,  but  inves- 
tigation proved  it  to  be  false.  India,  America's  greatest  competitor  in 
cotton  culture,  has  a  destructive  cotton  enemy  in  the  shape  of  a  boll- 
worm,  differing  greatly,  however,  from  our  boll- worm,  but  equally  des- 
tructive. * 

The  cotton  crop  in  Australia  is  injured  by  the  cotton-bug  (allied  to 
the  "  red  bug  "  of  the  Bahamas  and  Florida) ;  in  Greece,  the  cut- worms 
injure  the  young  crop ;  in  Italy  and  in  Sicily  larvae  of  several  species 
injure  the  growing  plant,  and  in  other  cotton-growing  countries  local 
insect  enemies  are  found ;  but  all  of  these  countries  are  blessed  with  im- 
munity from  the  ravages  of  the  American  cotton- worm. 

Of  the  extent  of  its  injuries  in  the  West  Indies,  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  last  century,  some  idea  has  already  been  given.  In  the  Bahamas 
the  cotton-worm  was  injurious  every  year,  from  the  time  where  we  left 
it  up  to  1834,  when  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  took  place  and  put 
an  end  to  cotton  culture.  The  insects  were  to  be  seen  the  whole  year 
round,  but  were  less  numerous  after  the  stormy  season,  which  is  in  Sep- 
tember and  October,  and  most  numerous  just  before  the  beginning  of  the 
gales.  In  general,  Aletia  was  not  considered  by  the  natives  as  a  serious 
enemy  to  the  cotton  plant,  as  the  damage  done  by  it  was  always  small 
compared  to  that  done  by  the  "  cotton-bug"  (Dysdercus  suturellus,  H.  Schf). 
Upon  the  breaking  out  of  the  civil  war  in  the  United  States,  cotton  culture 
recommenced  in  the  Bahamas  with  great  activity,  and  upon  the  close  of 
the  war  again  decreased,  Long  Island  and  Exuma  being  the  only  islands 
pursuing  its  cultivation  at  present.  All  inhabitants  unite  in  saying  that 
Aletia  has  not  been  seen  since  a  great  hurricane  which  took  place  in 

*  The  larva  of  Depressaria  gossypiella  Saunders,  incidentally  mentioned  in  chapter  I. 
The  moth,  which  is  a  small  Tineid,  lays  the  egg  in  the  blossom,  and  the  young  larva 
mines  in  the  forming  seed,  preventing  the  maturing  of  the  boll.  One-fourth  of  the 
crop  is  frequently  lost  from  the  ravages  of  this  insect. 


72  EEPORT   UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

I860,  and  Mr.  Schwarz  was  unable  to  find  a  trace  of  the  insect  in  any  of 
its  stages.* 

In  Cuba,  no  cotton  has  been  grown  for  fifty  years  or  more,  except  a 
very  small  quantity  at  the  southeast  end  of  the  island,  and  an  occa- 
sional plant  for  medicinal  purposes.  Many  of  the  present  inhabitants 
do  not  know  the  reason  for  this,  and  many  Americans  traveling  in  Cuba 
have  expressed  their  surprise  that  cotton  is  not  cultivated  with  such 
evident  advantages  in  the  way  of  soil  and  climate.  J.  P.  Guarche, 
United  States  consul  at  Matanzas,  writing  to  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture in  1855,  explains  this  as  follows  : 

Thirty-five  or  forty  years  ago  attempts  were  made  by  emigrants  from  the  United 
States,  but  with  little  or  no  success ;  and  since  that  time  the  gradual  rise  in  the  cost 
of  labor  here  and  the  gradual  depression  in  its  value  in  our  own  country  have  deterred 
the  most  sanguine  from  the  prosecution  of  this  branch  of  industry.  Labor  and  capital 
always  seek  their  highest  reward,  which  no  doubt  will  continue  to  be  found  in 
the  cultivation  of  sugar-cane  and  tobacco,  for  which  this  island  is  so  admirably 
adapted.  Another  obstacle  also  exists  in  the  fact  that  the  soil  yenei-ates  a  worm  which 
attacks  the  cotton  plant  and  destroys  the  greater  part  of  the  crop  almost  every  year. 
This  worm  is  said  to  infest  the  plantations  of  our  Southern  States,  lut  its  ravages  there 
are  represented  to  be  trifling  in  comparison  with  what  they  are  here. 

In  the  neighboring  island  of  San  Domingo  the  state  of  things  is  not 
nearly  so  bad.  Cotton  has  there  been  grown  almost  since  the  first  set- 
tlement of  the  island,  and  is  now  an  important  article  of  export.  The 
cotton-worm  has  always  been  known  as  one  of  the  drawbacks  to  the 
crop,  but  never  as  a  remarkably  serious  one,  and  in  the  other  islands 
which  export  cotton  at  present  (Porto  Bico,  Trinidad.  Barbuda,  Mar- 
tinique, and  Guadaloupe)  the  same  can  be  said.  As  stated  in  the 
beginning  of  this  chapter,  however,  on  more  than  one  island  the  culture 
of  cotton  has  been  entirely  abandoned  from  the  attacks  of  this  insect. 

In  Mexico  the  principal  cotton-growing  regions  are  the  vicinities  of 
Vera  Cruz,  Matamoros,  Monclova,  Santiago,  Colima,  and  Acapulco.  It 
is  entirely  for  domestic  purposes,  however.  We  have  heard  of  the  cot- 
ton-worm from  Matamoros  and  Monclova,  close  to  the  Texan  border,  in 
times  gone  by,  and  also  along  the  Gulf  coast  of  Vera  Cruz.  As  to  its 
occurrence  on  the  western  coast  of  Mexico  we  have  no  data  whatsoever. 

In  British  Guiana  cotton  culture  was  begun  in  1752  and  continued 
until  1838,  when  it  had  dwindled  to  a  very  small  industry,  partly  owing 
to  the  ravages  of  the  chenille.  Dr.  Chisholm's  observations  t  in  1801 
and  1802,  of  which  we  have  already  spoken,  are  the  fullest  which  we 
have  found  upon  the  cotton-worm  in  South  America,  and  from  them  we 
quote  the  following : 

One  of  the  most  singular  circumstances  respecting  this  species  of  the  Phalena  is  the 
uncommonly  fragrant  smell  which  issues  from  the  plant  on  which  it  feeds,  although 
neither  the  animal  itself  nor  the  plant  is  possessed  of  the  fragrance  separately.    * 
So  powerful  is  the  odor  produced  by  the  ravages  of  this  caterpillar  that  it  may  be 
perceived  more  than  a  hundred  yards  from  the  plant.     A  whole  year  may  sometimes 

*See  Appendix  I,  Report  of  E.  A.  Schwarz  (preliminary). 
tBrowster's  Edinburgh  Encylopedia,  article  Cotton. 


THE  COTTON  WORM  IN  GUIANA.  73 

occur  without  any  appearance  of  the  chenille ;  and,  notwithstanding  this,  the  year 
immediately  following  may  be  marked  by  the  most  extensive  proofs  of  its  voracity. 
*  *  *  A  curious  observation  relative  to  the  history  of  the  cotton-moth  and  cater- 
pillar is  the  rapidity  with  which  it  carries  its  ravages  to  distinct  and  even  distant 
fields  of  the  plantation.  We  should  be  inclined  to  imagine  that  the  wind  has  much 
agency  in  spreading  its  destructive  progeny ;  for  in  the  course  of  a  single  night  whole 
fields,  consisting  of  from  four  to  ten  acres,  hitherto  unmolested,  have  been  devoured  by 
them.  Or  does  this  proceed  from  the  flight  of  myriads  of  the  insect  in  its  perfect 
state  to  distant  fields  and  then  depositing  their  eggs,  whose  fecundation  is  quick- 
ened by  the  fostering  heat  of  a  favorable  season,  and  thus  giving  rise  to  those  sudden 
and  astounding  colonizations.  That  the  leaves  of  cotton  are  the  nidi  as  well  as  the 
food  of  the  chenille  is  evident  from  the  operations  of  the  caterpillar  when  preparing 
for  its  change  to  the  pupa  state.  By  means  of  a  thready  substance,  resembling  a 
spider's  web,  of  a  white  color,  the  leaf  which  the  larva  intended  for  the  scene  of  its 
transformations  is  drawn  together  so  as  to  form  a  funnel-shaped  fold,  close  at  the 
edges,  and  shut  up  at  the  broadest  part  or  base.  The  pupa  is  inclosed  in  a  covering 
of  the  thready  substance,  and  acquires  its  perfect  form  or  image  at  the  expiration  of 
nine  days.  *  *  * 

Immediately  after  dusk,  in  those  seasons  which  are  unfavorable  to  their  propaga- 
tion, myriads  approach  the  candles  and  are  very  troublesome,  but  soon  terminate  their 
existence  in  its  flame.  The  period  of  their  existence,  when  not  destroyed  by  such 
causes,  is  about  nine  days ;  and  the  whole  life  of  the  insect,  including  all  its  trans- 
formations from  the  ovum  to  the  death  of  the  moth,  is  about  twenty-seven  days.  In 
the  pupa  state  this  insect  is  subjected  to  the  rapacity  of  several  other  insects.  Those 
I  have  more  particularly  observed  are  a  small  species  of  apterous  bug,  I  believe  the 
Cimex  grylloides,  and  the  common  red  ant.  These  are  often  found  in  the  hollow  folded 
leaf,  having  the  means  of  disengaging  themselves  from  it  by  a  cylindrical  passage 
penetrating  to  the  helpless  pupa,  of  which,  when  these  insects  infest  it,  nothing  remains 
but  the  shell  or  coriaceous  coat.  *  *  *  The  evolutions  of  the  larvae  and  the  transforma- 
tions and  the  death  of  the  insect,  or  the  appearance  and  disappearance  of  the  chenille,  are 
certainly  regulated  by  particular  states  of  the  atmosphere  and  by  the  phases  or  changes 
of  the  moon.  The  chenille  or  larva  of  the  cotton-moth  generally  appeal's  in  years 
favoring  the  fecundation  of  its  ova,  in  July  or  August,  a  few  days  before  the  new  moon  ; 
increases  during  the  increase  of  the  moon,  and  nearly  about  the  full  moon  begins  to 
disappear,  and  soon  after  ceases  altogether.  Happily  for  the  planter,  however,  this 
happens  only  every  second  or  third  year.  But  in  years  uncommonly  favorable,  the 
chenille  appears  and  disappears  every  month  from  July  to  October,  and  afterwards  from 
the  middle  of  January  to  the  beginning  of  March.  *  *  * 

Although  the  planters  anathematize  this  destructive  insect  with  all  the  virulence  of 
Eruulphus,  it  does  not  seem  that  anything  effectual  has  been  attempted  to  prevent  or 
destroy  the  evil.  *  *  *  A  prudent,  economical  planter  will  increase  the  brood  of 
every  species  of  domestic  poultry,  particularly  turkeys ;  for  this  has  a  tendency  to 
diminish  the  brood  of  the  chenille  in  a  very  great  degree,  while  profit  arises  from  the 
augmentation  of  useful  stock.  Turkeys  are  observed  to  have  a  remarkable  appetite 
for  the  larvae  of  the  cotton-moth,  and  devour  prodigious  quantities  of  them?  But 
the  most  useful  and  natural  enemy  of  the  chenille  is  the  bird  called  in  the  colony 
Chenille  bird  (the  black  and  yellow  Manakyn  of  Edwards,  or  the  Pipea  aureola  of  Lin- 
naeus), and  the  Certhia  familiaris,  or  house  wren,  and  the  Parus  nigrttsof  Linn.,  men- 
tioned by  Dr.  Bancroft  (Nat.  Hist,  of  Guiana,  p.  182)'.  The  former  of  these  appears 
on  the  coast  with  the  chenille,  and  the  flocks  are  numerous  in  proportion  to  the  insect," 
&c. 

We  also  learn  from  Dr.  Ure,*  in  1835,  that  the  chenille  was  the  most 
prominent  enemy  to  the  cotton  plant  in  British  Guiana. 
In  Dutch  Guiana  cotton  culture  began   in  1706,  and  considerable 
*  Cotton  Manufacture,  I,  174. 


74  REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

cotton  is  still  exported.  The  chenille  has  always  been  very  destructive, 
and  is  ranked  as  the  most  injurious  foe  to  the  crop.  Mr.  F.  W.  Cragin, 
United  States  consul  at  Paramaribo,  in  writing  to  the  Department  of 
Agriculture,  in  1856,  speaks  of  the  chenille  as  Noctua  xylina,  Say. 

Brazil  has  grown  cotton  for  many  years.  Concerning  the  appearance 
of  the  cotton-worm  in  the  more  northern  cotton-growing  provinces 
thare  can  be  little  doubt,  from  their  contiguity  to  Guiana.  Farther 
south,  the  original  Aletia  argillacea  came  from  Bahia.  We  find  an  inter- 
esting letter  on  the  occurrence  of  the  insect  in  the  more  southern  prov- 
ince of  Sao  Paulo  in  Professor  Willet's  report.*  Professor  Willet  says : 

Dr.  E.  L.  Mclntyre,  of  Thomasville,  Ga.,  writes:  "  I  settled  in  the  province  of  Sao 
Paulo,  Brazil,  in  the  year  1866,  and  remained  there  eight  years  and  a  half.  The  cul- 
tivation of  cotton  was  of  recent  date  then,  and  they  were  planting  their  fourth  crop 
when  I  arrived.  Prior  to  the  year  1863  there  had  been  some  cotton  planted  in  the 
country,  perhaps  of  an  indigenous  variety,  but  no  one  had  ever  observed  a  cotton- 
worm,  and  I  believe  they  had  never  existed  there,  t  In  1802  the  price  of  cotton  offer- 
ing great  inducements  to  Brazilian  farmers  they  sought  to  procure  seeds,  but  none 
could  be  had,  and  I  am  informed  the  seed  then  being  used  was  brought  from  New 
Orleans.  The  first  year  no  caterpillars  were  seen,  but  after  the  second  they  com- 
menced to  eat  the  leaves,  and  had  increased  to  such  an  extent  that  when  I  moved 
from  there  the  cultivation  of  cotton  was  nearly  abandoned. 

Concerning  the  appearance  of  Aletia  in  the  other  South  American 
countries  which  export  cotton — Venezuela  and  Peru,  and  in  those  coun- 
tries in  which  it  is  cultivated  simply  for  domestic  purposes,  United 
States  of  Colombia,  Ecuador,  Bolivia,  and  Argentine  Eepublic — we 
regret  having  no  data  whatsoever. 

•Appendix  I,  Report  of  J.  E.  Willet. 
t  Undoubtedly  an  incorrect  inference. 


CHAPTEE   III. 

HABITS  AND  NATURAL  HISTORY. 

Much  has  been  written  respecting  the  habits  and  natural  history  of  the 
cotton-worm,  but  the  greater  part  of  these  writings  have  appeared  in 
agricultural  journals  of  limited  circulation.  In  many  instances  this  can 
hardly  be  deemed  a  misfortune,  for  the  germs  of  truth  contained  in  the 
accounts  of  this  insect  are,  in  most  cases,  accompanied  by  a  great  amount 
of  error.  It  is  very  strange  that  so  few  writers  should  have  made  and 
recorded  careful  observations  on  a  pest  whose  ravages  have  been  so 
great  and  long  continued. 

A  few  observers,  however,  have  carefully  studied  the  insect  and  pub- 
lished accounts  which,  in  the  main,  are  accurate.  The  most  important 
of  these  writings  are  those  of  Professor  Glover,  Mr.  Affleck,  and  Doctor 
Phares.  A  complete  list  of  the  writings  consulted  in  the  preparation 
of  this  report  is  given  elsewhere.* 

Although  the  published  accounts  have  been  carefully  studied  prepar- 
atory to  writing  this  chapter,  the  facts  herein  recorded  are,  unless  oth- 
erwise stated,  the  result  of  observations  made  during  the  seasons  of 
1878  and  1879.  Care  has  been  taken  to  verify  even  those  facts  which 
have  already  been  generally  received.  To  the  general  reader  some  of 
the  points  which  are  discussed  in  detail  will  doubtless  seem  trivial  j  but 
in  deciding  what  is  the  best  mode  of  combating  this  pest  these  very 
points  are  often  among  those  which  become  most  important. 

THE  EGO. 

In  this  stage  of  its  existence  the  cotton-worm  is  known  to  but  few 
people,  both  its  color  and  size  shielding  it  from  the  observation  of  un- 
trained eyes.  Every  cotton  planter  should,  however,  not  only  become 
familiar  with  the  appearance  of  the  egg  but  know  just  where  to  look 
for  it.  With  this  knowledge  time  may  be  gained,  the  loss  of  which  in 
the  application  of  remedies  may  result  disastrously.  As  it  is  now,  the 
worms  are  rarely  observed  until  nearly  full  grown,  and  then  but  little 
time  remains  for  the  protection  of  the  crop. 

The  egg  is  circular,  much  flattened,  and  ribbed ;  its  greatest  diameter 
is  a  little  more  than  one  fortieth  of  an  inch  (.685mm);  its  form  is  shown 
in  Fig.  1.  When  first  laid  the  egg  is  of  a  beautiful  bluish-green  color; 
this  changes  to  a  dirty  white  before  it  hatches. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  tender  foliage  at  the  top  of  the  plant  is 

*  See  chapter  IX— Bibliography. 

75 


76  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

first  destroyed  by  the  cotton-worm,  it  is  generally  believed  by  planters 
that  the  greater  number,  if  not  all,  the  eggs  are  laid  upon  that  part  of  the 
plant.  This  belief  gave  rise  to  the  practice 
which  has  been  carried  on  hi  some  localities, 
of  cutting  off  and  destroying  the  terminal 
shoots  of  the  plant;  the  planters  thinking 
that  in  this  way  the  eggs  would  be  destroyed 
and  the  crop  saved.  This  idea  I  found  to 
be  an  erroneous  one.  Rarely  eggs  may  be 
found  on  any  part  of  the  plant  above  ground, 
but  almost  invariably  they  are  deposited  on 
the  lower  surface  of  the  larger  leaves,  and 
by  far  the  greater  number  of  them  are  to  be 
found  on  the  middle  third  of  the  plant.* 

The  eggs  are  deposited  singly,  and  1  rarely 
found  more  than  four  or  five  upon  a  single 
leaf,  even  when  the  moths  were  most  abun- 
dant; still  they  sometimes  occur  in  greater  numbers.  The  duration  of 
the  insect  in  this  state  varies  greatly,  depending  upon  the  season.  Dur- 
ing the  warmer  part  of  the  summer  months  the  eggs  hatch  in  little  more 
than  two  days  after  they  are  deposited,  but  in  the  autumn  they  may  re- 
main nearly  a  week  before  the  larvae  issue. 

THE  LARVA. 

Some  time  before  the  larva  issues,  it  can  be  seen  through  the  trans 
parent  shell  of  the  egg,  the  eyes,  mandibles,  and  V-shaped  suture  separat- 
ing the  epicranium  from  the  clypeus  being  especially  prominent.  A  few 
hours  later,  after  repeated  efforts,  which  are  plainly  visible  with  a  micro- 
scope, the  larva  succeeds  in  breaking  a  hole  through  one  side  of  the 
shell,  and  it  soon  eats  its  way  out.  Occasionally  the  larva,  as  soon  as  it 
emerges,  eats  a  portion  of  the  egg-shell ;  usually,  however,  the  shell  is 
left  undisturbed. 

The  newly  hatched  larva  is  of  a  very  pale  green  color,  or  white  with 
a  faint  tinge  of  green  ;  the  head  is  pale  yellow,  with  no  trace  of  the  black 
piliferous  spots  which  are  so  conspicuous  in  the  later  stages ;  the  ocelli 
are  black ;  the  piliferous  spots  of  the  body  are  at  first  quite  indistinct, 
but  soon  become  more  prominent ;  the  thoracic  legs  and  the  third  and 
fourth  pairs  of  abdominal  legs  are  very  long;  the  first  and  second  pairs 
of  abdominal  legs  are  mere  tubercles. 

The  young  larva  usually  remains  on  the  lower  surface  of  the  leaf  upon 
which  the  egg  was  deposited,  feeding  upon  the  more  tender  portions  and 
leaving  the  upper  cuticle  unbroken.  Sometimes,  however,  small  larvae 
which  evidently  have  been  hatched  recently  are  found  on  leaves  where 
no  signs  of  egg-shells  can  be  detected,  while  shells  but  no  larvae  are 

*  For  a  detailed  discussion  of  this-  point  and  of  the  number  of  egga  upon  each  leaf, 
see  Appendix  I,  report  of  W.  Trelease. 


HABITS    OF    YOUNG   LARVAE. 


77 


found  on  larger  leaves  just  below  these.  Yet  I  believe  that  the  larvae 
always  feed  a  little  before  leaving  the  leaf  on  which  they  were  born. 
The  young  larva  does  not  eat  entirely  through  the  leaf  until  it  is  nearly 
two  days  old,  and  often  not  until  the  fourth  day  after  it  leaves  the  egg. 
Thus  the  earliest  indication  of  the  presence  of  the  worms  is  numerous, 
small,  semi-transparent  spots  upon  the  larger  leaves.  The  smallest  lar- 
vae which  I  found  eating  through  a  leaf  in  the  field  measured  from 
five-sixteenths  to  three  eighths  inch  in  length  (8ram  to  9.5mm).  In  con- 
finement the  newly -hatched  larvae  eat  the  upper  surface  or  lower  surface 
of  the  leaf  according  as  they  happen  to  be  on  one  side  or  the  other  but 
do  not  perforate  the  leaf  till  two  to  four  days  old.  The  injury  done  to 
the  cotton  during  this  early  part  of  the  life  of  the  larvae  is  inconsiderable. 

The  young  larvae  are  extremely  active.  Their  first  and  second  pairs 
of  abdominal  legs  being  functionless,  they  resemble  in  their  mode  of 
locomotion  the  true  measuring- worms  (Geometridae)  even  more  than  do 
the  full-grown  larvae.  When  disturbed  they  drop  from  their  resting 
place  by  means  of  a  silken  thread ;  frequently  they  climb  back  again  in 
the  way  commonly  employed  by  spinning  caterpillars,  which  is  to  bend 
the  head  down  to  one  side,  and  catch  hold  of  the  thread  with  the  anterior 
pair  of  legs,  then,  supporting  the  body  by  these  legs,  seize  the  thread 
again  with  the  jaws  at  as  high  a  point  as  possible ;  this  act  is  repeated 
until  the  larva  regains  its  place.  It  sometimes  happens  that  a  larva  in 
moving  about  encounters  one  of  these  silken  threads  extending  from  one 
point  of  support  to  another ;  in  such  a  case  the  larva  is  able  to  walk 
along  this  thread  with  its  ordinary  looping  motion,  as  if  walking  along 
the  lower  surface  of  a  twig.  The  abdominal  legs  are  obviously  fitted  for 
clasping  any  small  object;  but  it  is  not  until  we  examine  the  thoracic 
legs  with  a  microscope 
that  we  can  see  how  well 
adapted  they,  too,  are  for 
this  purpose. 

In  Fig.  2,  a  represents 
the  terminal  portion  of  the 
leg  of  a  young  larva,  and 
5  and  c  represent  the  claws 
of  a  full-grown  larva.  It 
will  be  seen  that  in  each 
case  there  is  a  piece 
shaped  something  like 
the  hoof  of  a  horse,  w  h  ich , 
acting  with  the  true  claw,  forms  a  very  efficient  clasping  organ. 


FIG.  2. 


In  the 


young  larva  there  is  a  curious  fan-shaped  appendage  (Fig.  2,  a  a)  at- 
tached near  the  base  of  the  claw,  the  function  of  which  we  failed  to  dis- 
cover. This  appendage  is  present  in  the  Mlgrown  larva ;  but  here  it 
loses  its  peculiar  form,  becoming  long  and  narrow. 

Observations  made  in  the  field  during  the  month  of  August  indicate 


78  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

that,  as  a  rule,  this  insect  lives  at  that  season  thirteen  days  as  a  larva, 
before  webbing  up,  and  remains  as  a  larva  one  day  after  this,  before 
changing  to  a  pupa.  Occasionally,  two  days  elapse  between  the  web- 
bing up  and  the  change  to  pupa.  Specimens  which  were  kept  in  breed- 
ing-cages in  my  office  remained  eighteen  days  in  the  larval  state.  This 
unusually  long  time  was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  the  temperature 
of  the  room  in  which  they  were  kept  was  much  lower  than  that  in  the 
cotton-fields.  Specimens  bred  by  Professor  Glover  under  similar  circum- 
stances passed  twenty  days  before  webbing  up.* 

The  larva  sheds  its  skin  five  times  during  the  period  of  its  growth. 
The  individuals  which  I  bred  moulted  at  regular  intervals  of  three  days, 
the  first  moult  being  made  when  the  larvae  were  three  days  old.  At 
this  moult  nearly  all  the  larvae  ate  their  shed  skins.  During  the  first 
stage  the  head  of  the  larva  is  marked  only  by  the  six  black  eyes  on  either 
side.  After  the  first  moult  the  conspicuous  black  spots  on  the  head 
appear.  When  six  days  old  the  larvae  moulted  the  second  time,  and 
when  nine  days  old  the  third  moult  occurred.  At  this  moult  the  larvae 
began  to  vary  in  color ;  some  becoming  striped  with  black,  and  others 
remaining  green.  On  the  twelfth  day  the  fourth  moult  occurred,  and 
the  fifth  moult  on  the  fifteenth  day.  Three  days  later  the  larvae  webbed 
up.  When  full  grown  the  larva  measures  If  inches  in  length.  A  de- 
tailed description  of  the  full-grown  larva  is  appended  to  this  section. 

The  variation  in  color  referred  to  above  is  quite  interesting ;  no  expla- 
nation of  it  has  been  discovered.  I  found  by  experiment  that  the  dis- 
tinction is  not  a  sexual  one,  as  moths  of  each  sex  were  bred  from  each 
kind  of  larvae.  General  observations,  that  is,  those  made  without  abso- 
lutely counting  the  individuals  of  each  color,  show  that  there  are  no 
dark  larvse  in  either  the  first  or  second  broods.  About  one-fourth,  or 
less,  of  the  third  brood  are  striped  with  black.  About  one-half,  or 
slightly  more,  of  the  fourth  brood  are  dark,  many  of  them  being  almost 
entirely  black;  while  nearly  all  of  the  fifth  brood,  "third  crop"  of  the 
planters,  are  black  or  very  darkly  striped. 

After  the  larvae  become  large  enough  to  eat  through  the  leaves,  or,  in 
the  language  of  the  planter,  "to  rag  the  cotton,"  they  move  to  the  top  of 
the  plant  and  destroy  the  tender  terminal  foliage;  thus  the  earliest  indi- 
cation usually  observed  of  the  presence  of  the  worms  is  the  "ragging" 
of  the  tops  of  the  plants.  As  already  stated,  this  has  led  to  the  practice 
of  "  topping"  the  cotton. 

In  feeding,  the  worms  rest  upon  either  the  upper  or  lower  surface  of 
the  leaf,  but  more  frequently  upon  the  latter.  They  eat  most  early  in 
the  morning  and  late  in  the  evening.  As  we  have  frequently  observed 
with  other  caterpillars,  the  cotton  worm  may  often  be  seen  resting  upon 
some  portion  of  the  plant,  supporting  itself  by  its  prolegs  and  swinging 
the  anterior  part  of  its  body  from  side  to  side  as  if  fanning  itself.  The 
larva  has  another  interesting  habit.  When  touched  or  otherwise  fright- 
*  Agricultural  Report,  1855,  p  75. 


HABITS    OF    LAEVAE.  79 

ened,  or  sometimes  when  it  wishes  to  move  to  another  part  of  the  plant, 
it  suddenly  throws  itself  by  a  jerking  motion  into  the  air.  I  have  care- 
fully studied  this  mode  of  jumping.  It  is  as  follows :  The  larva  clings 
to  its  support  by  its  three  posterior  pairs  of  prolegs;  it  swings  the  an- 
terior part  of  its  body  to  one  side,  and  then,  rapidly  moving  it  to  the  other, 
lets  go  at  the  proper  moment;  the  momentum  of  the  anterior  part  of  the 
body  is  sufficient  to  carry  the  whole  body  some  distance.  In  this  way  a 
larva  can  jump  two  feet  in  a  horizontal  direction.  They  will  often  spring 
from  the  highest  part  of  the  cotton  plant  and  fall  to  the  ground.  On 
one  occasion  (August  26)  I  was  in  a  field  where  the  plants  were  nearly 
stripped  of  their  leaves  at  the  top ;  the  larvae  were  moving  to  the  lower 
leaves.  I  saw  none  crawling  down  the  stalks.  All,  so  far  as  observed, 
performed  the  journey  by  jumping.  They  rarely  fail  to  alight  upon  their 
feet  and  cling  to  the  object  touched.  Not  one  in  fifty  strikes  one  leaf 
and  falls  to  another  before  getting  hold  with  the  hooks  with  which  the 
prole gs  are  furnished.  Many,  springing  too  far  from  the  plant,  would 
touch  no  leaf  and  thus  fall  to  the  ground.  This  litrva  does  not  seem 
able  to  cling  by  its  true  legs,  and,  by  swingingkhe  posterior  part  of  the 
body,  jump.  When  I  press  upon  the  head  of  the  insect  with  a  stick  or 
pencil,  it  seems  unable  to  jump  unless  it  can  first  withdraw  its  head. 
But  if  the  pencil  be  put  on  the  posterior  part  of  the  larva,  it  will  jerk  the 
anterior  portion  of  the  body  so  violently  as  to  pull  itself  from  beneath 
the  pencil.  I  have  been  unable  to  find  any  silk  connecting  the  larva 
with  the  object  from  which  it  springs ;  and  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  in 
jumping  it  does  not  spin  a  thread. 

I  did  not  observe  a  single  instance  of  systematic  marching,  as  is  indi- 
cated by  the  popular  name  army- worm,  which  has  been  so  generally 
applied  to  this  species.  I  saw  on  several  occasions  immense  numbers 
of  the  larvae  on  the  ground,  crawling  in  all  directions  in  search  of  food  or 
places  in  which  to  transform.  And  on  one  occasion  (August  26)  I  saw 
myriads  of  the  worms  of  different  sizes  crawling  in  all  directions  over  the 
ground,  when  there  was  plenty  of  food  and  places  in  which  to  transform 
on  the  plants,  as  not  more  than  one-third  of  the  foliage  had  been  eaten. 
This  was  the  time  when  I  observed  so  many  larvae  springing  from  the 
stripped  upper  portions  of  the  plant  to  the  leaves  below  j  perhaps  most 
of  the  worms  on  the  ground  were  those  which,  in  jumping,  had  failed 
to  alight  on  the  lower  leaves.  I  visited  the  field  at  night  to  ascertain  if 
the  marching  was  kept  up  at  that  time.  I  found  none  crawling  over 
the  ground,  and  nearly  all  those  on  the  plants  were  perfectly  at  rest. 

When  the  larvae  are  feeding  on  the  cotton  in  great  numbers  there 
arises  a  peculiar  sweetish  odor,  which,  although  not  easy  to  describe,  is 
very  characteristic.  This  odor,  I  supposed,  proceeded  from  the  excre- 
ment of  the  Iarva3 ;  but  Mr.  Trelease  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  "  due 
partially  to  the  crushing  of  the  leaves  by  so  many  mandibles."  In  any 
case  this  odor  is  perceptible  only  when  the  larvae  are  present,  in  great 
numbers.  The  fact  that  many  planters  say  that  they  can  smell  the 


80  EEPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

worms  sooner  than  they  can  find  them  otherwise  is  very  strong  evidence 
of  the  lack  of  proper  knowledge  of  the  habits  of  this  species. 

Many  planters  believe  that  the  cotton- worm  will  only  eat  the  cotton 
after  it  has  reached  a  certain  stage  of  maturity.  They  have  been  led  to 
this  conclusion  chiefly  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  early  broods  of  the 
worm  consist  of  so  few  individuals  that  they  usually  escape  observa- 
tion. Other  facts  which  have  led  to  this  belief  are  not  so  easily  ex- 
plained. It  is  sometimes  observed  that  certain  cotton-plants  are  left 
untouched  while  other  and  older  cotton  growing  near  is  entirely  de- 
stroyed. An  instance  of  this  came  under  my  personal  observation.  In 
a  field  where  the  cotton- worms  were  very  abundant  and  had  destroyed 
two-thirds  of  the  foliage,  I  observed  that  along  a  ditch  through  this  field 
the  cotton  was  green  and  very  little  eaten.  On  inquiry,  I  learned  that 
this  cotton  had  been  planted  a  month  later  than  that  in  the  remainder 
of  the  field,  as  the  cotton  first  planted  along  the  sides  of  the  ditch  had  been 
washed  away.  It  may  be  that  the  nectar  glands,  which  will  be  dis- 
cussed later,  were  not  soj^tive  on  the  younger  plants  as  on  the  older 
ones  5  and  hence  the  moffis,  not  being  attracted  to  these  plants,  did  not 
oviposit  on  them.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  when  this  obser- 
vation was  made  (August  20)  the  younger  plants  were  as  large  as  those 
planted  earlier  in  the  season ;  and  I  can  see  no  reason  why  the  nectar 
glands  on  these  should  not  have  been  as  active  as  those  on  the  older 
plants.  Had  facts  which  were  discovered  later  in  the  season  been 
known  at  that  time,  this  point  would  probably  have  been  cleared  up. 

It  has  been  often  remarked  that  the  worms  will  not  eat  cotton  which 
is  affected  with  rust.  The  reason  usually  assigned  is  that  the  leaves 
are  not  suitable  food.  Although,  doubtless,  larvae  would  not  thrive  so 
so  well  on  such  plants,  is  it  not  probable  that  less  eggs  are  laid  upon 
them  owing  to  the  small  amount  of  nectar  secreted  by  them  ? 

Although,  as  a  rule,  the  cotton-worm  feeds  only  on  the  leaves  of  the 
cotton  plant,  it  is  occasionally  found  lying  within  the  open  flowers  feed- 
ing upon  the  stamens.  It  also  frequently  destroys  the  buds  and  small 
bolls.  This  is  the  case  when  the  plant  is  stripped  of  its  foliage.  I  have 
also  seen  many  buds  and  bolls  destroyed  when  the  foliage  on  the  lower 
third  of  the  plants  was  eaten  but  little.  When  a  cotton- worm  destroys 
a  boll,  it  does  not,  like  the  boll- worm,  merely  eat  out  its  contents,  but 
often  eats  the  greater  part  of  the  pod  also. 

From  what  has  been  learned  respecting  the  time  required  for  the  full 
development  of  the  larva,  and  the  small  amount  of  injury  done  during 
its  early  stages,  it  can  be  seen  that  the  accounts  which  are  often  heard 
respecting  the  short  time  which  elapses  from  the  first  appearance  of  the 
worms  to  the  complete  destruction  of  the  crop  are  founded  on  an  error. 
We  have  heard  many  accounts  of  instances  where  fields  had  been 
attacked  by  cotton- worms  and  destroyed  within  three  days!  If  by 
"first  appearance"  one  understands  the  earliest  time  at  which  a  brood 
of  cotton-worms  has  been  developed  of  sufficient  size,  both  as  to  indi- 


OTHER    FOOD    PLANTS.  81 

viduals  and  numbers,  to  be  easily  seen,  these  accounts  will  not  convey  a 
wrong  impression.  For  example,  a  planter  informed  the  writer,  in 
reply  to  questions  respecting  a  certain  field,  that  the  worms  first  appeared, 
in  it  three  days  previous.  It  was  a  field  adjoining  his  residence,  through 
which  he  passed  every  day,  and  was  one  to  which,  as  he  informed  me,  he 
had  paid  special  attention.  On  visiting  the  field  I  found  it  very  badly 
infested  with  cotton- worms  which  were  then  two-thirds  grown,  and  hence 
must  have  been  more  than  three  days  old.* 

Although  observers  may  fall  into  error  respecting  the  time  required 
for  the  devastation  of  a  field  of  cotton  by  this  pest,  exaggeration  is 
hardly  possible  respecting  the  completeness  of  the  destruction  which 
sometimes  occurs.  We  have  repeatedly  seen  places  in  which  the  plants 
were  so  completely  stripped  of  their  foliage  that  there  were  not  left  as 
many  uneaten  leaves  as  there  were  stalks,  a  few  dried  and  brown  leaves 
on  the  lower  part  of  the  plants  being  the  only  semblance  of  foliage  left 
on  what,  ten  days  previous,  was  a  beautiful  green  field.  In  cases  of 
this  kind,  not  only  are  all  the  green  leaves  eaten,  but  the  young  bolls 
are  also  destroyed,  and  often  the  bark  is  gnawed  from  the  small  branches. 

The  stopping  of  the  growth  of  the  plant  is  not  the  only  loss  which  the 
destruction  of  the  foliage  entails.  Open  cotton  is  frequently  injured  by 
the  dropping  of  the  excrement  of  the  larvae  upon  it.  Much  injury  also 
results  from  the  premature  opening  of  the  bolls,  caused  by  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  foliage.  Not  only  is  such  cotton  of  inferior  quality,  but  when, 
in  addition  to  the  fully-developed  bolls,  many  immature  ones  are  made 
to  open,  it  is  often  impossible  for  the  planters  to  pick  the  cotton  before 
much  of  it  falls  out  upon  the  ground  and  is  thus  seriously  damaged. 
Immense  losses  sometimes  occur  in  this  way,  when  wind  and  rain  closely 
follow  the  destruction  of  the  foliage  by  the  worms. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  some  parts  of  the  cotton  belt — notably  the  more 
northern  sections — the  advent  of  the  cotton- worm  is  not  dreaded.  It 
rarely  reaches  these  regions  till  late  in  the  season,  and  then  the  planters 
consider  the  destruction  of  the  foliage  a  benefit  rather  than  otherwise, 
as  in  this  way  the  maturity  of  young  bolls,  which  would  otherwise  be 
destroyed  by  frost,  is  hastened.  Sometimes,  even  in  southern  portions 
of  the  cotton  belt,  in  localities  where  the  plant  grows  very  rank  if  the 
worms  do  not  appear  early,  the  destruction  of  the  leaves  late  in  the  sea- 
son is  regarded  as  a  source  of  profit. 

No  well  authenticated  instance  is  recorded  of  the  cotton-worm  feed- 
ing upon  any  plant  except  cotton.t  Many  experiments  were  tried  to 

*  We  have  seen  that  the  time  required  for  the  cotton-worm  to  attain  its  growth 
varies  greatly,  depending  upon  temperature.  Hence  it  may  be  possible  that  under 
unusual  conditions  a  brood  of  worms  might  be  developed  so  rapidly  that  they  would 
strip  a  rield  in  a  few  days  after  their  first  appearance.  Still,  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances, this  would  not  be  the  case. 

t  P.  Winifree,  De  Bow's  Review,  iv,  261  (1847),  says :  "  In  the  West  Indies  they  feed 
promiscuously  on  the  leaves  of  a  plant  there  called  the  salve-bush ;  this  plant  grows 
about  the  height  and  its  leaves  are  a  good  deal  like  the  mullein  of  this  country,  having 
a  whitish  color  and  a  soft  velvety  feeling." 
6  c  I 


82  EEPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

induce  them  to  feed  upon  other  plants,  all  resulting  negatively.  Even 
when  the  larvae  were  placed  upon  plants  closely  allied  to  cotton  they 
starved.  Still  there  is  reason  to  believe,  as  will  be  shown  later,  that 
another  food-plant  exists  in  Wisconsin  at  least. 

When  full  grown,  the  larva  folds  one  edge  of  a  leaf  over  its  body  and 
fastens  it  down  with  yellowish  silk.  It  then  spins  a  delicate  cocoon  about 
itself.  At  times,  when  the  cotton- worms  are  very  numerous,  it  frequently 
occurs  that  the  foliage  is  so  badly  eaten  that  is  with  difficulty  that  the 
worms  find  a  leaf  in  which  to  web  up.  Their  endeavors  to  conceal  their 
bodies  before  pupating  are  at  such  times  very  amusing.  The  merest 
fragment  of  a  leaf  is  called  into  service ;  and  frequently  very  vigorous 
struggles  ensue  between  rivals  endeavoring  to  secure  the  same  place. 
Often,  too,  the  trouble  of  the  successful  competitor  does  not  end  with  his 
webbing  up.  Other  larvae  not  yet  fully  grown,  finding  this  remnant  of  a 
a  leaf,  devour  it,  exposing  the  pupa,  which  either  falls  to  the  ground  or 
hangs  suspended  by  some  of  the  silken  fiber  which  happens  to  be  attached 
te  the  uneaten  frame  work  of  the  leaf.  A  detailed  description  of  the  larva 
is  appended.  This  will  serve  to  distinguish  the  cotton- worm  from  other 
larvae  which  are  sometimes  mistaken  for  it. 

ALETIA  ARGILLACEA,  Hiibner. 

Full-grown  larva. 

Length,  If  inches  (41mm).  Color,  light-green,  striped  with  white  and  black,  and 
spotted  with  black  and  yellow ;  in  many  individuals,  especially  those  of  the  earlier 
broods,  the  black  stripes  are  wanting.  Head,  ochre-yellow,  with  thirty  black  spots, 
from  each  of  which  arises  a  short,  stiff,  black  hair  (13  a).  Body,  light-green,  with  dorsal 
line,  two  subdorsal  lines,  and  lateral  line  white,  and  with  numerous  intensely  black 
piliferons  spots.  The  more  conspicuous  of  these  spots  are  arranged  as  follows:  Eight 
forming  two  transverse  rows  of  four  each  on  the  dorsal  part  of  the  first  body  seg- 
ment (prothorax) ;  a  simple  transverse  row  of  four  on  each  of  the  two  following  seg- 
ments (in  these  two  rows  the  inner  spots  are  much  smaller  than  the  outer  ones)  j 
on  each  of  the  eight  following  segments  (first  to  eighth  abdominal),  four  spots,  form- 
ing the  angles  of  a  square ;  a  row  of  spots  on  the  lower  subdorsal  line,  one  spot  on 
each  segment;  below  these,  three  spots,  forming  a  triangle.  In  the  green  varieties 
the  piliferous  spots  are  surrounded  with  white,  and  are  thus  rendered  more  conspicu- 
ous ;  spiracles  black.  Usually  a  row  of  indistinct  yellow  spots  upon  and  above  the 
upper  subdorsal  line.  All  legs  pale-green ;  claws  of  thoracic  legs  black ;  first  pair  of 
abdominal  legs  rudimentary ;  second  pair  half  as  large  as  third  pair.  The  distribution 
of  black  varies  greatly  in  different  specimens.  In  some  there  are  no  black  stripes,  this 
color  being  almost  entirely  absent,  except  in  the  piliferous  spots  described  above ;  in 
other  specimens  all  that  part  of  the  body  above  the  lateral  line,  excepting  the  dorsal 
and  subdorsal  lines,  is  black.  The  following  grades  between  these  two  extremes  may 
be  fotind : 

a.  Dorsal  line  bordered  on  each  sid<-  with  black  ;  varies  in  width  in  different  speci- 
mens from  those  in  which  it  is  a  mere  line  to  those  in  which  the  entire  space  between 
the  dorsal  line  and  the  upper  subdorsal  line  is  black. 

6.  Similar  to  variety  a,  except  that  the  space  between  the  subdorsal  lines  is  also 
black. 

c.  Similar  to  variety  b,  except  that  the  space  between  the  lateral  line  and  the  lower 
subdorsal  line  is  more  or  less  black.  Aiitenn;e  three  jointed,  basal  joint  large,  fleshy ; 
second  joint  about  one-third  the  length  of  first  joint,  and  often  not  visible,  being  with- 


THE    PUPA.  83 

drawn  into  first  joint;  third  joint  equal  in  length  to  the  first  and  of  a  brown  color. 
This  joint  bears  at  its  outer  extremity  three  conical  tubercles,  one  of  which  is  large, 
appearing  like  a  subjoiut,  and  bearing  a  small  tubercle  ;  mandibles  strong,  pale,  with 
their  edges  and  teeth  black ;  teeth,  four,  rather  dull. 

PUPA. 

After  the  larva  has  formed  its  cocoon  within  a  folded  leaf,  its  body 
shortens  and  increases  in  diameter,  assuming  a  somewhat  fusiform  shape. 
Those  parts  that  were  light  green  become  bluish  or  copper  color.  After 
one  or  two  days  have  elapsed  the  larva  sheds  its  skin  and  becomes  a 
pupa. 

This  is  at  first  of  a  delicate  green  color,  but  in  a  few  hours  it  changes 
to  a  chestnut-brown,  which  sometimes  becomes  so  dark  as  to  be  almost 
black.  This  change  in  color  is  attended  by  a  toughening  and  hardening 
of  the  body  walls.  Frequently  the  head,  thorax,  and  wing-sheaths  be- 
come darker  than  the  remaining  portions  of  the  body.  The  posterior 
third  of  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  abdominal  segments  is  much  lighter 
in  color  than  the  remaining  part  of  the  seg- 
ments. When  the  pupa  is  much  contracted, 
the  lighter  portion  of  each  of  these  segments  is 
covered  by  the  following  segment:  The  length 
of  the  pupa  varies  from  five-eighths  to  thirteen- 
sixteenths  inches  (16nira-2()mm).  Its  form  is 
shown  on  Plate  I.  The  wing-sheaths  nearly 
reach  the  fifth  abdominal  segment.  The  tip  of 
the  abdomen  is  furnished  with  four  hooks  A 

short  distance  in  front  there  are  four  other  FlG  3_End^f  pupa  ahove 
hooks,  each  one  arising  from  a  small  pit.  Fig.  and  below. 

3  represents  two  view^  of  this  part  of  the  pupa,  a  the  dorsal  view,  and  b 
the  ventral  view. 

When  a  field  is  badly  infested  with  cotton- worms  they  frequently  eat 
the  folded  leaves  containing  pupa?.  Occasionally  such  pupae  remain 
suspended  by  their  hooks  and  fragments  of  the  cocoon  attached  to  the 
remains  of  the  leaf,  as  shown  on  Plate  I. 

The  duration  of  the  pupa  state  varies  greatly.  During  the  warmer 
part  of  the  summer  it  is  only  six  or  seven  days,  but  in  the  autumn  indi- 
viduals of  this  species  have  been  known  to  remain  a  month  in  this  state. 

THE  ADULT. 

The  size  and  appearance  of  the  adult  is  represented  on  Plate  I.  The 
general  color  of  the  upper  surface  of  the  wings  and  body  is  light-brown. 
The  anterior  wings  are  tinged  with  wine-color  on  the  inner  and  middle 
parts,  shading  into  a  light  olive-green  on  the  external  portions.  These 
wings  are  marked  by  several  wavy  transverse  lines  of  a  reddish  color, 
and  by  a  black  or  grayish  spot  near  the  center  of  each  wing ;  outer 
border  fringed  with  white,  with  six  reddish  spots.  These  characters 


84  KEPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

will  serve  to  distinguish  this  insect,  but  a  more  detailed  description  is 
appended  to  this  section. 

Unlike  the  larva,  the  adult  Aletia  argillacea  is  not  confined  to  a  single 
article  of  food,  the  moths  feeding  upon  sweets  of  many  kinds.  Although 
nectar  forms  a  considerable  part  of  this  food,  the  moths  seldom  visit 
flowers  for  this  substance.  A  few  plants  possess  nectar  glands  in  addi- 
tion to  those  of  the  flowers,  and  it  is  from  such  plants  that  these  moths 
obtain  nectar.  The  cotton  plant  is  one  of  this  number,  each  leaf  being 
furnished  with  from  one  to  three  nectar-secreting  glands.  Usually  there 
is  but  one  of  these,  which  is  situated  on  the  lower  surface  of  the  main 
rib,  near  the  petiole  ;  occasionally  leaves  can  be  found  in  which  each  of 
the  three  larger  ribs  is  furnished  with  a  gland.  This  gland  appears  to 
the  naked  eye  as  a  swelling  of  the  rib,  in  the  center  of  which  is  a  depres- 
sion containing  usually  a  drop  of  clear,  somewhat  viscid,  sweet  fluid. 
When  this  fluid  is  not  consumed  by  moths,  ants,  or  other  insects,  it  will 
accumulate  so  as  to  form  a  large  drop  projecting  beyond  the  walls  of 
the  gland.  Other  glands,  similar  in  appearance  and  function,  are  situ- 
ated, one  at  the  base  of  each  of  the  three  bracts  forming  the  involucre 
or  "  square,"  and  sometimes  also  three  additional  glands  at  the  bottom 
of  the  calyx  alternating  with  these  bracts. 

These  glands  were  first  figured  by  Professor  Glover  in  his  manuscript 
work  on  cotton.  The  leaf-gland  is  represented  on  Plate  IX  of  that  work, 
accompanied  by  the  statement :  "  This  is  frequently  tilled  with  a  sweet 
substance  which  proves  very  attractive  to  ants  and  other  insects."  The 
glands  of  the  involucre  are  represented  on  at  least  six  different  plates  j 
and  on  Plate  XX  especial  attention  is  called  to  them.  The  explanation 
of  the  plate  reads  as  follows :  "  One  of  the  three  glands  on  the  outside 
of  the  involucre  secreting  a  sweet,  viscid  substance  much  sought  after 
by  flies,  ants,  &c.  This  gland  is  sometimes  pierced  by  insects,  causing 
a  different  kind  of  rot." 

While  in  the  field,  during  the  summer  of  1878,  I  became  interested  in 
these  facts,  which  I  afterwards  learned  had  been  observed  long  before 
by  Professor  Glover.  When  I  informed  Professor  Riley  of  certain  obser- 
vations that  I  had  made,  he  suggested  that  perhaps  the  cotton-moth 
also  derived  nourishment  from  these  glands.  Subsequently,  at  Bacon- 
ton,  we,  in  company  with  Professor  Willet,  went  into  the  field  at  night 
with  dark-lanterns  to  study  this  subject.  Within  a  half  hour  from  the 
time  we  entered  the  field,  I  had  the  pleasure  of  pointing  out  to  Professor 
Riley  a  moth  in  the  act  of  sipping  nectar  from  a  gland  at  the  base  of  a 
boll ;  thus  proving  the  truth  of  his  inference.  We  also  observed  moths 
feeding  at  the  heads  of  Paspalnm  here,  a  common  grass  growing  as  a 
weed  in  the  cotton  fields.  Although  no  other  moths  were  observed  at 
that  time  to  feed  on  the  nectar  of  cotton,  during  the  present  season  (1879) 
many  observations  have  been  made  showing  that  it  is  the  normal  habit 
of  this  insect  to  do  so.  A  few  days  after  the  discovery  of  the  moth  feed- 
ing at  the  extra-floral  nectar  glands  of  the  cotton,  my  host,  Captain 
Bacon,  informed  me  that  as  he  was  riding  home  in  the  evening  from  a 


NECTAR    GLANDS.  85 

distant  part  of  his  plantation  he  observed  a  large  number  of  moths  fly- 
ing about  some  cow-pea  vines  that  were  growing  in  a  corn-field.  I  at 
once  equipped  myself  with  a  lantern  and  proceeded  to  the  corn-field.  On 
arriving  there  I  witnessed  a  remarkable  sight ;  thousands  of  the  cotton- 
moths  were  about  the  pea- vines  feeding  on  the  nectar  excreted  by  a 
series  of  glands  situated  near  the  end  of  the  peduncle  which  is  produced 
beyond  the  last  flower  or  pod.  The  moths  were  not  at  all  shy,  but 
would  remain  engrossed  in  partaking  of  their  repast  even  when  the 
lantern  was  brought  within  a  few  inches  of  them.  In  no  instance  were 
the  moths  seen  to  visit  the  flower  of  the  pea. 

It  is  probable  that  the  cotton-moth  feeds  about  nectar  excreted  by 
many  other  plants.  Mr.  Trelease  observed  it  feeding  at  the  ovate  glands 
which  are  situated  at  the  base  of  the  petiole  of  the  larger  coffee  weed 
(Cassia  ocmdentalis). 

The  subject  of  extra  floral  nectar  glands  is  very  interesting;  and  it  is 
one  which  has  been  studied  but  little.  The  problems  presented  by  it 
are  quite  puzzling.  In  the  case  of  the  nectar  glands  of  flowers  we  have 
organs  which,  serving  to  attract  bees  and  other  insects,  and  thus  in- 
suring cross-fertilization,  are  very  useful  to  the  plant.  But  the  functions 
which  extra  floral  nectar  glands  perform  are  seldom  as  obvious.  In  case 
of  the  cotton  plant  these  glands  serve  to  attract  the  moths  and  thus 
insure  the  ovipositiou  of  eggs  upon  it.  Thus  the  plant  upon  which  the 
glands  are  the  most  active  will  prove  most  attractive  to  the  moths,  and 
hence  will  be  the  one  the  most  likely  to  be  infested  by  worms.  There- 
fore, instead  of  being  beneficial,  as  we  know  the  floral  nectar-glands  to 
be,  the  extra  floral  glands  seem  at  first  sight  to  be  injurious  to  the 
plant. 

It  was  not  until  we  learned  that  the  small  ants,  so  abundant  in  cotton 
fields  and  which  are  attracted  to  the  plants  by  these  glands,  are  the  most 
efficient  check  upon  the  increase  of  cotton-worms  that  we  understood 
how  beneficial  these  glands  really  are.  For,  although  the  moths,  led  by 
instinct  to  oviposit  only  upon  the  food  plant  of  their  young,  would 
visit  the  cotton  plants  even  if  the  glands  were  not  present,  it  is  not  im- 
probable that  the  ants  are  first  attracted  to  the  plants  by  the  supply  of 
nectar  which  they  find  there,  and  as  this  nectar  is  secreted  by  the  very 
young  plants  the  ants  doubtless  begin  the  'destruction  of  cotton-worms 
as  soon  as  they  appear.  The  statement  of  Professor  Eiley  that  \k  these 
sweets  are  first  produced  when  the  plant  begins  to  flower  and  fruit" 
(Annual  Report  Department  of  Agriculture,  1878,  p.  215),  was  merely  a 
conjecture  which  subsequent  observations  failed  to  confirm.  In  reality, 
glands  were  found  on  some  cotyledons  ;  these,  however,  did  not  seem  to 
secrete  nectar;  but  the  gland  on  the  first  leaf  begins  to  secrete  nectar 
(as  indicated  by  the  first  visits  of  ants)  about  the  time  that  the  third  or 
fourth  leaf  expands.* 

"The  bearing  of  this  subject  of  nectar  upon  the  subject  of  the  enemies  of  the  cotton- 
plant  is  so  important  that  \ve  have  requested  Mr.  Trelease  to  prepare  a  paper  upon  it, 
which  will  be  found  in  Part  III. 


86  REPOKT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

The  cotton-moth  is  not  confined  to  a  diet  of  nectar,  as  many  fruit- 
growers have  learned  to  their  cost.  Frequently  the  fig  crop  is  completely 
destroyed  in  some  sections  of  the  cotton  belt,  as  is  also  the  August  crop 
of  peaches.  The  moths  have  also  been  known  to  feed  on  apples,  grapes, 
melons,  and  the  jujube.  A  remarkable  instance  of  their  feeding  on 
melons  in  Wisconsin  was  communicated  to  Professor  Riley  last  year  ; 
we  quote  from  a  letter  on  file  iu  this  department  : 


RACINE,  "VVis.,  XofeintcT  17,  1878. 

DEAR  SIR  :  In  a  communication  to  the  Scientific  American  you  stated  that  the 
Aletia  argillacea  bored  into  peaches  in  Kansas.  In  this  connection  it  may  not  be  un- 
interesting to  state  the  following  :  Charles  Jackson,  4  miles  from  Racine,  raised  large 
quantities  of  melons  for  market,  mostly  of  the  nutmeg  variety.  He  complained  to  me 
that  there  was  a  miller  that  swarmed  in  his  melon  patch  at  night,  and  did  much 
damage.  I  visited  the  locality  at  night,  and  discovered  that  it  was  the  Aletia  argillacea, 
and  that  they  did  literally  swarm  ;  and  wherever  there  was  a  ripe  melon  that  had  a 
slight  crack  on  its  surface,  there  the  moths  were  sucking  and  crowding  into  the  fruit; 
and  in  that  way  they  did  considerable  damage.  This  was  on  September  10,  1877. 
Last  fall  they  were  not  so  numerous,  and  did  less  damage.  I  noticed  where  the 
melons  were  perfectly  sound  they  did  not  work.  *  *  * 

P.  R.  HOY,  .V.  D. 

C.  Y.  RILEY.  Washington,  D.  C. 

Kecently,  at  my  request,  Dr.  Hoy  sent  to  this  department  a  specimen 
of  a  melon-eating  moth,  and  it  proves  to  be  without  doubt  Aletia  argilla- 
cea. Dr.  Hoy's  observations  are  very  interesting,  not  merely  as  illustrat- 
ing another  mode  in  which  this  pernicious  pest  may  be  the  source  of 
serious  annoyance,  but  also  as  bearing  on  the  question  of  the  migratory 
powers  of  the  moth.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  this  again  in 
another  chapter. 

Although  it  appears  from  the  letter  of  Dr.  Hoy  that  the  moths  injured 
only  those  melons  which  were  cracked,  it  is  certain  that  in  the  case  of 
figs,  peaches,  and  grapes  the  moths  have  the  power  of  piercing  .holes 
through  the  unbroken  rind  of  the  fruit,  and  thus  of  destroy  ing  fruit  pre- 
viously uninjured.  That  a  moth  should  have  this  power  is  a  remarkable 
fact.  As  a  rule,  butterflies  and  moths  are  only  able  to  sip  iluid  sweets 
from  open  reservoirs,  as  the  nectaries  of  flowers,  the  organ  with  which 
this  is  done  being  soft  and  flexible. 

While  in  the  field  last  year  1  carefully  watched  the  operation  of  pierc- 

ing the  skin  of  a  peach.  At 
times  the  moth  used  the  tip 
of  its  maxilla;  as  if  it  were 
trying  to  prick  a  hole  into  the 
fruit  ;  at  other  times  the  tip 
of  the  maxillae  was  incurved, 
and  tlie  dorsal  surface  thus 
presented  to  the  peach  used 

FlG.  4.—  Maxillae  of  cotton-moth.  as   a  rasp.      A  Study  of  the 

structure  of  the  maxilla'  shows  how  well  adapted  they  are  for  piercing 
and  rasping.     The  tip  of  the  organ  is  well  adapted  for  piercing,  as  is 


DESTRUCTION    OF    FRUIT    BY    ALETIA.  87 

shown  by  Fig.  4;  and  the  portion  immediately  preceding  the  tip  is 
equally  well  adapted  for  rasping,  being  furnished  with  numerous  spines 
on  the  dorsal  surface.  The  ventral  surface  of  this  part  of  the  organ  is 
is  also  provided  with  spines. 
Probably  these  are  of  little  use 
in  piercing  the  rind  of  fruit,  but 
doubtless  they  aid  much  in  en- 
larging a  hole  when  it  is  once 
made,  and  also  in  lacerating 
the  pulp  of  fruit,  thus  setting 
free  the  juice.  Fig.  5  repre- 
sents a  crOSS  section  of  the  max-  FiG.  5.— Cross-section  of  maxilla?, 
ilhe.  The  relation  of  all  the  parts  is  well  shown,  excepting  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  muscles  which  are  within  the  walls  of  each  maxilla.  These 
muscles  were  torn  in  cutting  the  section.* 

Although  many  Lepidoptera  may  be  found  to  possess  the  power  of 
piercing  the  rinds  of  fruits  when  the  subject  is  more  carefully  studied, 
as  yet  but  few  instances  have  been  observed.  The  following  is  the  most 
striking:  An  Australian -moth  ( Opliidercs  fullonica)  is  very  destructive 
to  oranges.  This  insect  is  furnished  with  maxillae  similar  to  those  of 
Aletia  aryillacea,  with  which  it  is  able  to  pierce  the  thick  skin  of  the 
orange.  Figures  and  careful  descriptions  of  the  structure  of  the  maxillae 
of  this  orange-sucking  moth  have  been  published  by  M.  Kiinckel,  Cornptes 
Reudus,  August  30, 1875,  and  Francis  Darwin,  Quarterly  Journal  Micro- 
scopical Science,  1875,  p.  384.  Mr.  Darwin  also  states,  on  the  authority 
of  Mr.  K.  Trimen,  Curator  of  the  South  African  Museum,  that  at  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope  a  great  deal  of  fruit  is  thus  injured  by  Lepidoptera. 
Other  instances  of  Lepidoptera  piercing  vegetable  tissues  for  the  pur- 
pose of  obtaining  the  juices  are  given  by  the  elder  Darwin  in  his  work 
on  the  fertilization  of  Orchids. 

Although  there  is  no  doubt  respecting  the  ability  of  the  moths  to  per- 
forate the  rinds  of  fruit,  it  is  evident  that  they  will  seldom  do  so  if  it 
can  be  avoided.  Thus,  when  one  moth  has  made  a  hole  through  the 
skin  of  a  peach,  others  crowd  around  and  make  use  of  the  same  opening. 
I  have  observed  seven  moths  making  use  of  a  single  perforation  at  one 
time.  In  this  way  the  juice  of  the  peach  is  extracted,  only  a  spongy 
mass  being  left.  In  feeding  upon  figs,  however,  the  moths  frequently, 
instead  of  making  use  of  the  natural  opening  of  that  fruit,  pierce  the 
outer  rind.  Mr.  Trelease  made  careful  notes  respecting  the  manner  in 
which  the  moths  feed.  These  are  published  in  his  report.  (See  Appen- 
dix I.) 

*  As  this  report  is  written  chiefly  for  those  who  have  not  made  a  special  str.dy  of  en- 
tomology, a  few  words  in  explanation  of  the  structure  of  the  maxillae  of  moths  will 
not  be  out  of  place.  In  their  simplest  form,  the  mouth  parts  of  insects  consist  of  an 
upper  lip,  an  under  lip,  and  two  pairs  of  jaws  acting  horizontally  between  them.  In 
the  case  of  butterflies  and  moths  (Lepidoptera')  the  lower  pair  of  jaws  is  devt ;oped  into 
two  long,  flexible  organs ;  each  of  these  has  on  one  side  a  groove,  and  the  two  are 
fastened  together  so  that  the  grooves  form  a  tube,  as  shown  in  the  center  of  Fig.  5. 


88  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

There  has  been  some  discussion  respecting  the  natural  position  of  the 
moth  while  at  rest.  I  found  that  in  the  field  it  almost  invariably  alights 
with  its  head  down,  but  the  majority  of  specimens  which  I  saw  in  houses, 
when  resting  on  the  walls,  did  so  with  the  head  directed  upwards. 

During  the  warmer  part  of  the  season  the  moths  in  confinement  began 
to  oviposit  within  thirty-six  hours  after  emerging  from  the  pupa  state. 
During  the  autumn  the  time  varied  from  four  days  to  a  week.  The 
greater  number  of  eggs  are  laid  during  the  night.  As  already  stated, 
the  eggs  are  deposited  chiefly  on  the  lower  surface  of  the  larger  leaves 
on  the  middle  third  of  the  plant.  This  may  be  owing  to  the  fact  that 
the  moth  is  attracted  to  that  part  of  the  plant  by  the  nectar  glands 
which  are  on  the  leaves.  In  fact,  Mr.  Trelease  observed  moths  alter- 
nately sipping  nectar  from  these  glands  and  ovipositing.  During  the 
operation  the  moths  flew  from  leaf  to  leaf  and  from  plant  to  plant,  each 
moth  depositing  but  a  single  egg  on  a  leaf.  Still,  if  we  accept  this  as 
explaining  why  the  moths  oviposit  on  that  part  of  the  plant,  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  say  why  more  eggs  are  not  laid  near  the  glands  on  the  involucre, 
which  the  moths  also  frequently  visit. 

The  number  of  eggs  laid  by  a  single  moth  probably  varies  from  400 
to  600.  September  11,  I  counted  the  number  of  eggs  in  the  ovaries  of 
a  female  taken  in  the  field.  There  were  400  well  developed  eggs  and 
284  immature  ones.  After  that  date  I  dissected  many  females,  but 
found  only  immature  eggs. 

It  is  difficult  to  say  how  long  this  insect  exists  in  the  adult  state ; 
doubtless  the  time  varies  greatly  with  the  season.  Moths  of  the  third 
and  fourth  broods  die  in  confinement  within  five  days  after  their  exclu- 
sion from  the  pupa,  while,  as  we  shall  show  later,  those  of  the  last  brood 
remain  alive  several  months. 

The  number  of  broods  of  this  insect  in  a  single  season,  is  also  some- 
what difficult  to  determine.  For  not  only  does  the  earliest  brood  ap- 
pear at  different  times  in  different  sections  of  the  cotton  belt,  but  in  the 
same  locality  different  individuals  of  the  first  brood  were  found  to  vary 
in  age  nearly  two  weeks.  As  a  result  of  this  variation  during  the  latter 
part  of  the  season,  examples  of  all  stages  were  found  at  the  same  time 
in  the  same  field.  Still  a  large  proportion  of  the  cotton-worms  in  a 
given  locality  undergo  their  transformations  at  nearly  the  same  time ;  so 
that  broods  sufficiently  well  marked  for  our  purpose  have  been  ob- 
served. And  we  conclude  that  in  those  sections  in  which  we  believe  the 
moth  to  hibernate,  there  are  each  year  at  least  six  broods.  By  the  1st 
of  September  of  the  present  year  (1879)  larva*  of  the  fifth  brood  (third 
crop)  were  appearing  in  considerable  numbers  in  Central  Alabama. 
Moths  bred  from  specimens  of  this  brood  which  were  sent  to  this  de- 
partment began  to  oviposit  October  10,  and  October  15  larva?  of  the 
sixth  brood  began  to  appear.  It  is  probable  that  the  sixth  brood  ap- 
peared at  an  earlier  date  in  Alabama,  the  development  of  the  speci- 
mens in  my  breeding-cages  being  retarded  by  the  low  temperature  of 
the  room  in  which  they  were  kept. 


POWERS    OF    FLIGHT    OF    THE    MOTH.  89 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  things  in  the  natural  history  of  this  in- 
sect is  the  powers  of  flight  which  the  moth  possesses.  There  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  the  species  can  survive  the  winter  north  of  the 
cotton  belt ;  still,  the  moths  have  been  repeatedly  taken  far  north  of  the 
limit  of  cotton  culture ;  we  are,  therefore,  forced  to  conclude  that  these 
moths  have  flown,  aided  perhaps  by  winds,  from  some  portion  of  the 
cotton  belt  to  where  they  were  found.  Dr.  Packard  has  taken  the  moth 
on  Coney  Island  and  in  Salem  Harbor.  Mr.  Edward  Burgess  states 
that  it  flew  aboard  his  yacht  in  Boston  Bay,  September  9,  1873.  Mr. 
Grote  informs  me  that  it  has  occurred  at  Buffalo  in  September  and  Octo 
ber,  and  that  he  has  heard  of  it  at  Chicago,  Detroit,  London,  Ont., 
Albany,  and  New  York.  Professor  Eiley  reports  it  from  Chicago,  and 
the  letter  of  Mr.  P.  E.  Hoy,  already  quoted,  shows  that  it  has  occurred 
at  Eacine,  Wis.,  in  the  autumn,  repeatedly,  in  great  numbers.  It  will 
be  :  oted  that,  in  all  the  instances  in  which  the  date  of  the  occurrence 
of  the  moths  in  these  northern  localities  is  given,  they  were  found  only 
in  the  autumn.  This  confirms  the  conclusion  that  the  moths  cannot  en- 
dure a  northern  winter  and  that  their  presence  in  the  Northern  States 
is  dependent  on  migrations  from  the  South. 

Dr.  Hoy  states  that  he  has  never  found  the  moths  at  Eacine  earlier 
than  the  last  week  of  August.  But  the  fact  that  they  occur  there  in  so 
great  numbers  as  his  letter  indicates  is  very  remarkable ;  and  what  is 
more  wonderful,  Dr.  Hoy  informs  me  that  he  has  repeatedly  found  the 
moth  while  the  wings  were  yet  soft,  not  quite  dry !  This  indicates  with- 
out doubt  that  the  moths  had  just  emerged  from  the  pupa  state  ;  and 
that  the  larva  has  a  food -plant  in  that  locality.  The  numbers  in  which 
they  occur  there  strengthens,  if  possible,  this  conclusion.  For  it  is 
easier  to  suppose  that  a  few  moths  have  migrated  to  that  locality  each 
year,  and  that  it  is  the  progeny  of  these  moths  which  swarm  upon  the 
melons,  than  it  is  to  suppose  that  the  insect  should  migrate  to  that 
place  year  after  year  in  swarms,  while  it  is  but  rarely  observed,  and 
then  in  small  numbers,  elsewhere  in  the  Northern  States.  As  yet  we 
have  no  idea  what  this  food-plant  is.  The  immature  moths  were  taken 
"  in  the  woods  at  night  while  sugaring  " ;  this  indicates  that  it  is  not  a 
cultivated  plant ;  and  we  venture  to  predict  that  the  plant  is  not  com- 
mon in  the  Southern  States ;  else  the  larva  would  have  been  observed 
upon  it  during  the  seasons  that  the  cotton  fields  have  been  stripped  of 
their  foliage.* 

*  As  Dr.  Hoy  did  not  know  the  larva  of  Aletia  argillacea,  I  sent  him  specimens  to 
compare  with  the  different  larvae  in  his  collection  in  order  to  ascertain  if  he  had  taken 
it  at  Eacine.  Just  as  this  report  is  going  to  the  press  I  receive  from  him  a  larva  which 
undoubtedly  belongs  to  this  species.  Respecting  it,  Dr.  Hoy  says:  "I  send  to-day 
the  only  Wisconsin  larva  of  the  Aletia.  I  only  received  live,  one  of  which  I  pre- 
served ;  the  other  four  died  in  my  breeding-cage  as  I  did  not  know  what  they  were, 
and  was  deceived  as  to  the  plant  on  which  they  were  found.  This  is  my  record  : 
"  Taken  in  Pike  Woods  by  Mary  Deel,  August  10,  1879  ;  food-plant  not  satisfactorily 
described  j  unknown  to  me.' " 

Since  the  above  was  written  Dr.  Packard  notes,  in  the  January  number  of  the 


90  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

AXETIA  ARGILLACEA  Hiibner. 

$  $  . — Color  above  light  browii  tinged  with  olive-green  and  wine  color.  Expanse 
of  wings  one  and  three-sixteenths  inches  to  one  and  seven-sixteenths  inches  (30mm  to 
36mm).  Length  of  body  three-sixteenths  to  eleven-sixteenths  inches  (13ram  to  17mm). 
Head  varies  from  light  brown  to  wine  color,  with  a  small  whitish  tuft  before.  Anten- 
nae clothed  with  dark-wine  colored  and  white  scales  above,  and  short  yellow  hairs  be- 
low. Mandibles  conic,  light  yellow,  furnished  at  the  tip  with  a  brush  of  spiny  hairs. 
Labial  palpi  densely  clothed  with  short  scales  which  are  white  and  wine  color  mixed  ; 
second  joint  twice  the  length  of  the  first;  third  joint  equaling  the  first  in  length  but 
much  smaller.  Thorax  same  color  as  head.  Anterior  wings  tinged  with  wine  color 
on  the  inner  and  middle  part,  shading  into  a  light  olive-green  on  the  external  por- 
tion. In  some  specimens  the  anterior  wings  are  light  olive-green  throughout  ;  in  other 
specimens  the  reddish  tinge  is  very  pronounced. 

External  to  and  in  front  of  the  central  portion  of  the  anterior  wing  is  a  conspicuous 
black  or  grayish  spot,  composed  of  dark  scales  interspersed  with  white  ones.  Parallel 
to  the  anterior  margin  of  the  wing  is  a  row  of  four  minute  white  spots ;  one  is  situated 
at  the  base  of  the  wing,  one  between  the  dark  discal  spot  and  the  anterior  margin  of 
the  wing,  the  other  two  at  equal  distances  between  these ;  one  or  more  of  these  spots 
are  frequently  wanting,  and  sometimes  each  one  is  surrounded  by  reddish  scales;  the 
anterior  wing  is  also  marked  by  three  transverse  wavy  lines,  of  a  reddish  color  mar- 
gined with  white;  the  inner  line  is  one-fourth  of  the  length  of  the  wing  from  the  body, 
the  second  line  is  near  the  middle  of  the  wing,  and  the  third  line  is  outside  the  discal 
spot.  Fringe  white  with  six  reddish  spots:  posterior  wings-with  basal  portion  light, 
and  outer  part  clouded ;  lower  surface  light  brownish  gray;  anterior  wings  with  disk 
clouded  and  a  short  reddish  band  on  the  outer  third  of  costa ;  posterior  wings  with  a 
transverse,  narrow,  wavy,  brown  baud  near  the  middle  of  the  wing.  Described  from 
75  specimens. 

THE  THREE  CROPS  OF  WORMS. 

Notwithstanding  that  there  are  probably  five  or  six  broods  of  cotton- 
worms  every  year  in  the  southern  and  central  parts  of  the  cotton  belt, 
it  is  generally  believed  that  there  are  only  three  broods.  These  have 
been  designated  by  the  planters  as  the  first,  second,  and  third  crops  re- 
spectively. It  is  impossible  to  state  a  rule  by  which  it  can  be  determined 
to  what  broods  the  three  crops  correspond,  as  this  differs  in  different 
localities  and  different  seasons.  Almost  invariably  numbers  of  the  first 
brood  of  worms,  and  very  often  of  the  second,  also,  are  so  small  that  they 
escape  the  no?  ice  of  observers.  After  a  brood  of  sufficient  size  to  be  easily 
perceived  has  been  developed,  in  about  two  more  generations  a  sufficient 
number  of  worms  is  produced  to  strip  the  cotton  of  its  foliage.  The  re- 
sult of  this,  as  will  be  shown  later,  is  the  destruction  of  the  greater  part 
of  the  worms  also.  The  subsequent  broods  are  small ;  on  this  :u-<;ount, 
and  because  of  the  cotton  crop  being  destroyed,  the  planters  lose  inter- 
est in  the  development  of  the  worms,  and  the  later  broods  arc  not  no- 
ticed. In  a  word,  the  idea  of  there  being  only  three  "crops"  of  worms 
has  arisen  from  the  fact  that  as  a,  rule  there  are  only  three  broods  of 
sufficient  size  to  be  noticed  by  the  plan  UTS  bonne  the  cotton  crop  is 

American  Natuiulist.  the  fact  that  (specimens  of  ar</il£o«ea  ii'-w  into  his  study  window 
at  Providence  Sept.  30.  He  says  :  ••  The  moth  was  in  a  perfectly  fresh  condition,  and 
bore  every  appearance  of  having  quite  recently  emerged  from  the  chrysali...  Its 
appearance  certainly  did  not  bear  out  the  theory  that  all  the  northern  individuals  fly 
northward  from  the  cotton  belt,"  &c. 


MARCHING    OF    THE    WORMS.  91 

destroyed,  or  before  the  cotton  has  reached  a  stage  of  maturity,  after 
which  the  eating  of  the  foliage  by  the  worms  is  not  considered  a  calamity. 
In  some  instances  the  first  crop  of  worms  is  doubtless  the  second  brood 
of  the  season ;  in  some  instances  it  is  not  until  the  third  brood  is  pro- 
duced that  the  worms  are  of  sufficient  numbers  to  be  observed,  and  thus 
designated  as  a  crop. 

The  term  "crop  of  worms"  has  become  thoroughly  incorporated  in 
the  language  of  those  most  interested  in  the  cotton-worm;  and,  more- 
over, it  is  a  very  convenient  term.  We  shall  therefore  adopt  it ;  em- 
ploying it,  however,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  generally  used.  Thus,  by 
first  crop  of  worms  we  shall  mean  not  the  first  brood,  but  the  earliest 
brood  that  is  of  sufficient  size  to  be  easily  noticed ;  and  the  second  and 
third  crops  are  the  two  broods  immediately  following  the  first  crap. 
The  term  brood  will  be  used  in  its  usual  sense. 

DISAPPEARANCE   OF   THIRD   CROP. 

While  contemplating,  in  the  autumn  of  1878,  the  immense  number  of 
worms  which  constitute  the  third  crop,  I  was  struck  with  the  fact  that 
if  even  a  thousandth  part  of  the  worms  were  to  mature  and  survive  the 
winter  the  second  brood  in  the  spring  would  be  of  sufficient  numbers 
to  destroy  the  cotton  crop.  I  was  therefore  interested  in  watching  the 
disappearance  of  this  so-called  third  crop. 

The  result  of  these  observations  shows  that  when  the  cotton-worms 
occur  in  sufficiently  great  numbers  to  strip  the  cotton  of  its  foliage  the 
greater  part  of  that  brood  perishes  at  once. 

When  the  leaves  of  the  cotton  are  destroyed  the  worms  are  forced  to 
migrate  in  search  of  more  food  ;  or,  if  they  are  fully  growu,  as  is  often 
the  case,  in  search  of  places  in  which  to  undergo  their  transformations. 
While  at  Faunsdale,  Marengo  County,  Alabama,  August  28,  1878,  I 
was  fortunate  enough  to  witness  an  attempted  migration  of  this  kindr 
which  was  attended  with  astonishing  results. 

As  soon  as  the  larvae  left  the  cotton  stalks  they  experienced  great 
difficulty  in  crawling  over  the  surface  of  the  ground.  Clinging  hold  of 
the  loose  particles  of  earth  by  its  prolegs,  a  larva  would  attempt  to 
stretch  its  body  forward  in  the  manner  peculiar  to  "  loopers,"  but  no 
sooner  was  the  anterior  part  of  its  body  raised  from  the  ground  than 
the  insect,  unable  to  balance  itself  upon  the  crumbling  bits  of  earth, 
would  fall  to  one  side  with  the  full  length  of  its  body  upon  the  ground. 
Had  it  been  a  cloudy  day,  or  had  the  ground  been  shaded,  this  would 
not  have  been  so  serious  a  matter  to  the  larva;  but,  as  is  ususilly  the 
case  at  that  season  of  the  year,  the  sun  was  shining  with  an  intense  heat 
and  the  surface  of  the  soil  was  as  hot  as  the  sides  of  an  ovc:i.  The 
larvae  did  not  seem  to  suffer  so  long  as  they  were  resting  with  tl.eir  legs 
upon  the  ground,  but  no  sooner  did  one  of  them  fall  so  as  to  touch  the 
earth  with  its  body  than  it  began  to  squirm  violently.  Sometimes  a 
larva  would  regain  its  position  upon  its  legs,  but  the  first  attempt  at 


92  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

looping  would  result  as  before,  and  in  a  very  short  time,  often  not  more 
than  one  or  two  minutes,  it  would  succumb.  The  number  of  worms  de- 
stroyed in  this  way  is  immense.  I  am  certain  that  in  the  field  in  which 
I  made  these  observations  there  were  to  each  square  foot  of  laud  at 
least  an  average  of  five  dead  worms  that  had  been  killed  in  the  way  de- 
scribed within  a  few  hours.  Other  causes  tend  to  render  this  destruc- 
tion more  complete.  Thousands  of  larvae  are  destroyed  by  ants.  Many 
pupae  and  larvae  which  have  "webbed  up"  and  partially  transformed 
are  deprived  of  their  covering  of  leaves  by  their  voracious  companions 
and  fall  to  the  ground  where  they  perish.  And  still  others,  apparently 
more  fortunate  in  transforming  within  the  folds  of  the  leaves  of  other 
plants  than  cotton,  are  imprisoned  in  their  retreats  by  their  companions 
•which  follow  and  attempt  to  use  the  same  leaves  for  the  same  purpose. 

DISAPPEARANCE   OF   THE  LAST   BEOOD. 

Evidently  after  the  disappearance  of  the  brood  of  worms  known  as 
the  third  crop,  one  or  more  broods  are  usually  developed  in  some  parts 
of  the  cotton  belt.  Wherever  the  earliest  spring  brood  is  of  consider- 
able size,  there  will  be  developed  in  the  second  generation  a  sufficient 
number  of  worms  to  attract  general  attention.  In  this  case  the  fourth 
brood  will  constitute  the  third  crop,  and  there  will  remain  sufficient 
time  for  the  development  of  one  or  two  later  broods.  As  already  ex- 
plained these  broods  are  small  and  attract  little  attention.  Neverthe- 
less, the  disappearance  of  the  last  brood  is  one  of  the  most  important 
points  in  the  life-history  of  the  cotton-worm.  It  is  here  that  we  may 
hope  to  learn  much  on  the  long-disputed  point  as  to  whether  the  species 
•dies  out  each  year  in  the  United  States  or  not.  I  regret  that  I  have 
not  been  able  to  make  personal  observations  on  this  point,  as  my  stay 
in  the  field  extended  only  to  the  first  of  October.  Fortunately  careful 
notes  bearing  on  this  subject  were  taken  by  Prof.  E.  A.  Smith,  at  Tus- 
•caloosa,  Ala.,  and  by  Prof.  I.  E.  Willet,  at  Macou,  Ga.  The  following 
•quotations  from  letters  which  Professor  Smith  addressed  to  this  depart 
ment  at  the  time  will  furnish  important  details  respecting  Hie  disap- 
pearance of  the  autumn  brood  in  Alabama : 

OCTOBER  10. 

The  worms  have  eaten  most  of  the  leaves  and  young  buds  of  the  plauts  in  my  Held 
•and  are  on  the  move.  They  may  be  seen  moving  through  the  grass,  potato  vines, 
-&c.,  and  upon  the  trunks  of  pine  trees,  seldom,  however,  higher  than  live  or  six  feet 
•from  the  ground,  as  they  jump  oft' or  fall  back  after  climbing  to  that  height.  I  do 
•not  see  that  they  have  begun  to  eat  anything  else  than  the  cotton.  Most  of  the  worms 
•of  the  past  week  or  ten  days  have  webbed  tip  in  the  cotton  leaves,  and  many  chrysa- 
lides hang  from  the  denuded  leaf  stalks.  They  are  scarcely  at  all  covered  ;  the  leaf 
"blade  in  which  they  were  once  wrapped  having  been  eaten  away,  and  they  hang 
almost  free  in  the  air.  The  present  brood  of  worms  I  find  webbing  up  in  the  leaves 
•of  various  plants;  the  following  I  have  noticed:  sweet  potatoes,  Casein  obttix't  folia, 
and  C.  occidentals,  Phijsalis  lanceoJata,  Solatium  Carolinense,  sassafras,  rimrbilix  nil, 
Ipomea  tamnifolia,  Sida  spinoxa,  Ambrosia  ar  terms  iasfolia,  Xanthium  strumarium,  Euphor- 
bia maculata,  Amaruntim  Hpinoxnv,  (jitercuaaquatica  (small  tree),  sweet  gum,  watermelon, 


DISAPPEARANCE    OF    THE    LAST    BROOD.  93 

and  young  mulberries.  The  latter  seems  a  favorite  ;  nearly  all  the  leaves  of  half  a 
dozen  young  mulberry  plants  are  rolled  up  by  the  worms .  A  few  worms  of  the 
present  brood  I  have  found  webbed  up  in  the  cracks  of  the  bark  of  old  field  pines 
standing  in  the  field.  Most  that  I  have  seen  have  been  on  the  east,  north,  and  west 
sides  ;  have  seen  none  on  the  south  side  of  the  trees.  The  greater  part  of  the  present 
brood,  however,  are  webbing  up  in  any  leaves  that  they  encounter,  grass  leaves  ex- 
cepted. 

The  web  made  by  the  present  brood  of  worms  is  sin\ply  a  leaf  rolled  once  and  bound 
together  by  the  silk.  In  the  case  of  those  worms  webbing  up  in  the  crevices  of  pine 
bark,  a  thin  gauze  of  silk  was  all  that  protected  them.  Through  this  web  the  worm  can 
easily  be  seen.  Thus  far,  I  see  no  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  worms  to  make  a  denser 
cocoon  than  those  of  the  preceding  brood.  I  have  noticed  the  moths  occasionally  fly 
up  from  a  mass  of  sweet-potato  vines,  among  which  Cassia  obtusifolia  and  C.  occidentals 
were  growing.  Perhaps  the  glands  on  the  leaf  stalks  of  these  two  species  may  have 
offered  some  attraction,  though  I  have  not  seen  any  moth  upon  the  plants.  In  some 
old  stumps  in  my  field  I  have  not  yet  found  any  chrysalides,  nor  have  I  noticed  any 
in  the  ground. 

OCTOBER  16. 

As  I  wrote  you  October  10  the  caterpillars  were  then  moving  about  in  search  of , 
food,  the   cotton  leaves  being  nearly  all  eaten  up.     After  about  two  days  only  a  few 
worms  were  to  be  seen,  the  greater  part  having  disappeared,  or  webbed  up  in  all  sorts 
of  leaves,  in  the  crevices  of  bark  of  pine  trees,  and,  in  one  instance,  in  the  mosquito- 
netting  in  one  of  the  rooms  in  my  house. 

After  the  great  majority  of  the  worms  had  left  the  plants  a  few  might  be  seen  for 
several  days,  eating  the  cotton  boll  or  stretched  at  length  along  the  petiole  or  one  of 
the  ribs  of  a  denuded  leaf.  These  stragglers  would  eat  into  large  bolls  (nearly  full 
grown).  Since  day  before  yesterday,  October  14, 1  have  not  noticed  any  worms  in  the 
field.  The  leaves  were  about  all  eaten  up  by  the  10th  or  llth,  so  that  the  worms  were 
noticed  only  a  few  days  afterwards,  and  then  only  as  stragglers  from  the  main  army 
of  worms,  which  had  gone  in  search  of  food  or  had  webbed  up.  I  saw  no  worm  eating 
anything  except  the  leaves  and  bolls  and  young  buds  of  the  cotton  plant. 

OCTOBER  21. 

On  last  Friday  night  we  had  some  frost,  and  for  the  past  three  nights  I  have  not 
noticed  any  of  the  cotton  moths  at  my  baited  trees;  but  there  is  another  moth  which 
comes,  whether  the  weather  be  cokl  or  warm.  I  have  a  few  chrysalides  under  a  glass 
shade ;  several  moths  have  come  from  them  since  the  cool  weather  set  in,  and  I  expect 
to  see  quite  a  number  of  the  moths  yet  from  the  last  brood  of  worms  which  webbed  up 
after  they  had  eaten  up  all  of  the  cotton  leaves. 

OCTOBER  26. 

Since  last  writing  we  have  had  two  or  three  heavy  white  frosts,  viz,  on  the  nights  of  the 
22d,  23d,  and  24th.  On  these  nights  I  saw  no  moths,  except  one  or  two  species  of  which  I 
wrote  last  week.  I  do  not  know  their  names,  but  they  are  not  Aletia.  On  the  morn- 
ing of  the  23d  three  moths  came  from  the  chrysalides  which  I  have  under  a  glass  shade, 
on  a  shelf  on  my  porch  exposed  to  the  weather.  The  moths  were  benumbed  with  cold 
and  apparently  dead  ;  but  they  all  revived  after  being  brought  into  a  warm  room.  I 
turned  them  loose  next  day  when  it  was  warm  and  pleasant.  Last  night  the  ther- 
mometer stood  out-doors  at  60°  F.,  and  on  visiting  my  baited  trees  I  found  several  of 
the  cotton  moths  there.  They  seem  to  lie  up  during  the  cold  spells  and  to  come  out 
when  the  weather  moderates.  I  have  in  mind  always  to  find  out,  if  possible,  whethor 
the  chrysalides  are  formed  in  the  ground.  I  have  found  many  on  the  ground,  but 
they  had  evidently  dropped  from  The  plants  after  having  webbed  up  there ;  other 
worms  having  eaten  away  the  leaves  which  sustained  them.  There  are  hundreds  and 
perhaps  thousands  of  chrysalides  of  the  last  brood  of  worms,  webbed  up  in  the  leaves 


94  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

of  various  kinds  of  weeds,  ot  which  I  gave  you  a  partial  list  some  time  ago.  To  this 
you  cau  ad«i  Passiflora  incarnata.  The  great  majority  of  these  chrysalides  have  not 
yet  hatched  out. 

NOVEMBER  4. 

The  evening  of  October  26  was  warm  (0(5°  at  7  p.  m.),  and  more  than  50  cotton, 
moths  were  counted  at  my  baited  tree.  It  rained  before  morning,  then  cleared  oif 
•cold,  so  that  on  the  '27th  and  28th  no  moths  were  seen.  On  the  29th  it  was  warmer 
and  cloudy,  rained  slightly,  and  I  counted  7  or  8  moths.  On  the  30th,  3lst,  1st,  and  2d, 
oold  and  frosty  nights ;  no  moths  seen.  During  this  last  cold  spell  ice  has  formed  in 
thin  sheets,  and  I  am  anxious  to  know  how  it  has  affected  the  moths.  One  has  hatched 
out  from  the  chrysalides,  which  I  have  under  cover  since  the  cold  nights  of  the  last 
week. 

NOVEMBER  11. 

I  judge  by  the  scarcity  of  the  cotton-moths  since  cold  weather  that  they  are  not  able 
to  stand  the  cold,  and  have  either  been  killed  or  forced  to  seek  secure  quarters.  I 
have  found  none  yet  in  bark  of  trees  or  elsewhere.  Some  of  the  chrysalides  of  the 
last  brood  are  still  rolled  in  the  leaves  in  the  cotton  field ;  but  a  few  which  I  examined 
some  days  ago  seem  to  have  died.  These  chrysalides  are  slightly  shriveled  up,  and 
«ome  of  them  are  certainly  decaying,  if  I  may  judge  by  the  smell  when  they  are 
opened. 

The  following  extracts  from  letters  received  by  this  department  from 
Professor  Willet  will  indicate  the  details  of  the  disappearance  of  the 

last  brood  of  1878  in  Georgia: 

OCTOBER  6. 

I  was  in  the  cotton  fields  some  hours  this  morning.  The  condition  of  things  is  about 
this :  Very  few  larva) ;  mostly  greenish-yellow  in  color.  Few  pupae  ;  moths  mostly  out ; 
all  will  be  out  in  two  or  three  days.  Many  moths,  probably  a  majority  just  out  from 
pupa).  Considerable  number  of  eggs;  none  some  days  since.  I  hear  of  caterpillars 
in  small  numbers  in  most  of  the  State  below  this.  This  brood  of  caterpillars  has 
webbed  up  almost  entirely  on  the  cotton  stalks  on  which  they  fed.  Where  those  stalks 
were  entirely  divested  of  leaves,  a  few  went  to  weeds  near  by.  They  seem  to  have  no 
•disposition  to  ramble,  eating  the  leaves,  investing  chrysalides,  the  involucre  of  bolls, 
and  even  young  bolls  before  they  would  crawl  to  adjacent  stalks  which  had  not  been 
touched. 

The  moths,  as  yet,  are  near  the  small,  isolated  patches  invaded  by  them  as  cater- 
pillars, and  on  the  southwest  side  of  field  towards  which  a  strong  northeaster  has 
driven  them  some  days.  I  do  not  find  many  in  the  grass  and  stubble  on  borders  of 
the  field. 

OCTOBER  10. 

I  send  box,  with  about  a  dozen  each,  of  larvae  and  pupae,  all  I  found  yesterday  in 
walking  over  10  to  15  acres.  The  moths  are  much  scattered,  and  attractives  put  out 
night  before  last  drew  only  two  or  three.  I  do  not  find  that  they  are  leaving  the  field 
for  shelter.  There  are  no  dead  trees  nor  stumps  in  which  they  may  hide  ;  but  I  scare 
up  none  in  the  waste  patches  of  grass  and  weeds  on  one  side  of  the  field.  If  it  was 
now  August,  we  should  have  the  promise  of  a  largo  crop  of  worms  soon.  It  is  of  in- 
terest to  know  whether  they  will  appear  in  October. 

JCTOBER  18. 

The  situation  in  the  field  here  is  as  follows:  A  few  moths;  most  rather  ragged;  a 
few,  new  and  bright,  just  out  from  late  pupae;  some  eggs,  a  few  green  and  fresh, 
others  dried  up  ;  no  larvae.  I  searched  diligently  with  a  glass  for  young  larvae,  but 


DISAPPEARANCE    OF    THE    LAST    BROOD.  95 

found  not  one  where  there  were  eggs  a  week  to  ten  days  ago.  There  were  plenty  of 
grown  larvae  when  we  returned  here,  September  15,  and  a  few  pupae  and  moths.  The 
caterpillars  diminished  gradually  till  about  October  1,  since  which  time  there  have 
been  only  occasional  stragglers.  The  pupae  increased  to  about  same  date,  and  moths 
came  out  very  numerously  from  October  1  to  5;  more  sparingly  afterwards.  The 
abundance  of  pupae  and  moths  foreshadowed  a  good  brood  of  caterpillars  which  will 
never  appear,  even  if  we  have  no  frost  to-night.  Northeasters  have  prevailed  during 
the  mouth,  though  without  frost.  It  has  been  very  dry.  The  thermometer  was  51° 
on  Sunday  and  50°  this  morning — the  coldest  day.  The  cotton  leaves  are  old  and 
speckled,  except  the  new  young  leaves  here  and  there,  which  are  fresh  and  green. 

OCTOBER  19. 

I  sent  you  a  few  pupae  and  some  moths  in  chloral  solution  yesterday,  supposing  they 
would  be  the  last.  But  there  was  very  little  frost  last  night,  and  I  visited  another 
field  to-day,  where  the  cotton  was  planted  later  and  is  younger,  and,  being  on  well- 
manured  ground,  is  fresher,  greener,  and  more  vigorous.  Here  the  situation  is  some- 
what less  advanced  than  in  the  field  sent  from  last. 

Thermometer  at  sunrise,  39°.  Wind  northwest.  Slight  frost;  cotton  plant  in- 
jured. A  few  moths,  flying  rather  feebly  from  cold.  A  few  eggs,  some  fresh  ;  some 
straggling  larvae,  mostly  nearly  full  fed — a  few  half  grown,  and  two  only  J  inch  long, 
the  only  young  ones  I  have  seen  for  some  time.  The  cotton  plant  still  quite  green  and 
vigorous  and  blooming  ;  wasps  sucking  freely  at  the  glands — our  social  subterranean 
wasp,  called  "yellow-jacket." 

OCTOBER  26. 

I  visited  the  field  to-day  from  which  I  sent  you  specimens  on  the  19th.  There  was 
a  slight  frost  on  that  morning  (19th)  as  I  wrote;  thermometer 39°  F.  There  was  a 
similar  one  next  morning,  20th ;  thermometer  38°.  5  P.  At  a  point  not  far  from  the 
field  (Pio  Nono  College,  which  reports  to  the  Signal  Office),  I  understand  the  register- 
ing minimum  there  stood  at  33°.  Cotton  partially  killed  in  places  ;  worst  where  the 
worms  were.  Very  dry.  I  send  you  two  boxes  of  specimens,  one  box  containing  a 
few  Aletia,  moths  caught  in  the  field  and  30  or  40  pupae,  the  other  a  dozen  or  so  living 
Aletia  argillacea  larvae. 

Situation. — Cotton  foliage  much  reduced  by  age  and  cold,  but  still  some  young  green 
leaves  and  some  blooms.  A  few  Aletia  eggs,  two  or  three  seen  ;  fewer  than  a  week  ago. 
No  young  larvae,  none  less  than  three-quarters  grown  ;  a  few  pupae,  and  about  as  many 
moths  as  a  week  ago,  most  of  them  apparently  just  out. 

NOVEMBER  2. 

We  had  ice  and  temperature  of  31°. 5  F.  yesterday,  and  white  frost  and  temperature 
33°  F.  this  morning.  The  cotton  plant  is  dead.  Will  write  you  more  fully  in  a  day 
or  two. 

NOVEMBER  7. 

The  moths  continued  to  be  found  in  the  fields,  most  abundantly  near  the  patches 
most  eaten,  where  they  were  daily  coming  out  from  pupae,  certainly  till  October  26 ; 
November  1,  when  the  freeze  occurred,  not  one  was  scared  up.  I  have  sethi  no  differ- 
ence in  the  habits  of  the  last  brood  of  worms  here  in  webbing  up  or  seeking  quarters. 

DECEMBER  11. 

I  intended  placing  some  chrysalides  and  moths  of  Aletia  argillacea  in  boxes  and  ex- 
posing them,  with  fair  protection,  through  the  winter,  to  see  whether  they  could  pass 
the  winter  here  alive.  I  soon  found,  before  frost,  that  it  was  impracticable  then, 
as  the  former  would  come  out  and  the  latter  die  from  the  warmth.  Frost  caught  me 
in  this  quandary.  I  then  gathered,  November  4,  a  lot  of  chrysalides  (the  moths  had 
disappeared)  and,  on  examining  them,  found  them  in  so  unsatisfactory  condition,  that 
I  concluded  not  to  expose  them.  About  two  dozen  were  placed  in  a  box  in  my  sitting 


96  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

room,  hoping  to  hatch  some  moths  for  exposure.  The  following  is  the,  result :  In  some 
two  weeks  two  moths  came  out  ;  they  seemed  delicate,  and  one  lived  only  two  days,  the 
oth«r  four  or  five.  No  other  moths  have  appeared.  November  29, 1  fouud  four  Ichneu- 
mon Hies  out  in  box.  December  2  one  more,  and  December  7  another,  the  sixth,  the 
last,  with  no  ovipositor.  In  breaking  opeu  the  dried  chrysalides,  I  destroyed  two  pupae 
of  parasites.  These  make  eight  parasites  in  some  two  dozen  chrysalides;  a  large 
proportion.  I  had  75  chrysalides  in  a  box  in  summer  ;  about  50  came  out  moths ;  most 
of  the  others  could  not  escape  from  and  perished  in  the  dried  leaves.  I  saw  not  a  par- 
asite of  any  kind. 

The  two  following  extracts  from  Professor  Grote's  letters  also  bear 
upon  this  point : 

The  cotton  plant  is  now  (November  21)  stripped  of  leaves,  except  here  and  there  at 
the  tops ;  there  is  also  a  little  new  growth  on  the  main  stem.  The  worm  appeared  here 
September  7,  increasing  in  size  and  moi-e  noticeable  up  to  the  15th,  when  the  earliest 
webbing  was  noticed.  The  worm  was  not  very  numerous  nor  of  even  distribution. 
The  October  brood  was  hardly  noticed ;  nevertheless,  it  must  have  existed,  as  I  have 
been  finding  chrysalides  (not  many)  for  the  last  few  days  wherever  the  leaf  still  held. 
This  shows  that  the  last  brood  does  not  quit  the  plant,  as  I  have  formerly  observed  in 
Alabama.  Nevertheless,  I  searched  a  piece  of  wood  and  some  fence-corners,  as  in- 
structed, but  found  nothing. 


SAINT  CATHERINE'S  ISLAND,  COAST  OF  GEORGIA, 

November  28,  1873. 

I  think  my  observations  go  to  show  that  the  worm  does  not  leave  the  plant  for  the 
last  or  at  any  time.  In  Savannah  I  failed  to  find  any  traces  away  from  the  field.  In 
my  former  published  observations  in  Alabama,  I  found  the  last  chrysalides  giving  the 
fly  in  the  face  of  the  frost.  When  the  leaf  fails,  the  worms  web  up  any  way  possible 
in  the  squares,  or  between  the  stem  and  the  leaf  stalks.  They  never  leave  the  plant ; 
in  a  few  cases  they  spin  up  on  weeds  in  the  cotton  rows. 

From  the  above-quoted  correspondence  and  from  other  material,  some 
of  which  may  be  found  in  Appendix  II,  we  feel  warranted  in  stating-  the 
following  conclusions  respecting  the  disappearance  of  the  last  brood  of 
worms  :  In  making  preparations  to  undergo  their  tranformations,  indi- 
viduals of  this  brood  do  not  differ  in  habits  from  those  of  the  preceding 
broods,  except  that,  as  the  foliage  of  the  cotton  is  frequently  destroyed, 
it  becomes  necessary  for  the  worms  to  seek  other  places  in  which  to  web 
up.  Thus  we  see  the  worms  webbing  up,  not  only  in  the  leaves  of  cot- 
ton, but  in  the  leaves  of  any  plant  that  they  can  find,  and  even  in  the 
crevices  of  bark  ,of  trees.  Xo  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  worms  to 
make  a  denser  cocoon  than  those  of  the  preceding  broods  was  observed. 
A  large  part  of  the  pupae,  which  were  enveloped  in  leaves  of  cotton, 
became  exposed  and  fell  to  the  ground  owing  to  the  consuming  of  the 
leaves  by  other  larvae.  Many  such  pupae  would  naturally  fall  prey  to 
predaceous  insects  or  be  destroyed  by  other  causes.  Thus  we  find,  as 
with  the  third  crop,  that  a  large  proportion  of  this  brood  is  destroyed 
in  a  very  short  time  after  assuming  the  pupa  state.  The  length  of  time 
which  individuals  of  this  brood  remained  in  the  pupa  state  varied  greatly ; 
many  moths  emerged  early  in  October,  and  a  few  emerged  each  day  till 


FIRST   APPEARANCE.  97 

the  latter  part  of  the  month,  when  heavy  frost  occurred.  The  only 
instances  of  moths  emerging  from  the  pupa  state  after  a  heavy  frost,  of 
which  we  have  been  able  to  learn,  are  those  mentioned  in  Professor  Smith's 
letters  of  October  26  and  November  4,  and  in  Professor  Willet's  letter 
of  December  11.*  Professor  Smith  also  wrote  December  30:  "All  the 
chrysalides  which  I  have  examined  are  dead,  so  that  not  many,  if  any, 
will  survive  the  winter." 

FIRST  APPEARANCE. 

No  point  in  the  life  history  of  the  cotton-worm  is  of  higher  interest 
than  the  first  appearance  of  the  insect  in  the  spring.  Not  only  may  we 
expect  to  learn  here  important  facts  bearing  upon  the  question  of  hiberna- 
tion of  the  species  in  our  territory,  but  other  facts  which  will  be  of  serv- 
ice to  us  in  our  efforts  to  devise  some  way  in  which  to  check  the  increase 
of  this  pest  as  soon  as  it  appears.  The  general  impression  has  been  that 
the  earliest  appearance  of  the  worms  in  the  cotton  fields  was  during  the 
latter  part  of  June  or  in  July.  This  has  been  urged  as  a  proof  of  the 
theory  that  the  species  dies  out  each  season  in  the  United  States ;  and, 
what  is  much  more  serious,  this  idea  has  influenced  the  planters  to  neglect 
making  any  efforts  to  destroy  the  worms  early  in  the  season. 

Although  vigorous  efforts  were  made  to  collect  specimens  of  the  moth 
early  in  the  spring,  none  were  observed.  .Baits  of  various  sweetened  mix- 
tures were  exposed ;  these  attracted  many  moths,  but  none  of  them  were 
Aletia.  Neither  did  any  specimens  of  the  cotton-moth  come  to  light  at 
that  season.  This,  however,  only  proves  the  futility  of  any  attempts  of 
this  kind  to  destroy  the  moth  at  that  season  of  the  year,  For  we  know 
that  moths  were  present  and  ovipositing  on  the  cotton  very  soon  after 
the  young  plants  emerged  from  the  ground.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  May  21  a  full-grown  larva  was  found  in  Dallas  County,  Alabama, 
on  some  small  cotton,  which  was  planted  April  30,  and  was  well  up  about 
May  8.  On  May  23  another  larva  was  found  in  the  same  field.  As  this 
cotton  was  immediately  adjoining  some  which  was  planted  a  month  earlier, 
there  is  a  possibility  that  the  larvae  were  hatched  on  the  latter,  and  mi- 
grated to  the  place  where  found;  but  in  any  case  it  is  evident  that 
moths  were  flying  and  ovipositing  on  the  cotton  while  it  was  yet  quite 
young.  Other  larvae  were  observed  at  this  time;  one  May  23  on  the 
older  cotton ;  and  another  June  3.  These  particular  instances  are  cited, 
as  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  identity  of  the  larvae.  We  believe,  however,, 
that  they  were  found  even  earlier  in  the  season.  Colonel  Lewis,  of  Ver- 
non  Station,  in  the  Canebrake  region,  Alabama,  found  a  full-grown  larva 
May  17 ;  and  May  24  they  were  reported  from  two  other  plantations  in; 
the  Canebrake. 

The  following  testimony  of  our  correspondents  is  important  as  con- 
firming these  observations.  It  will  be  seen  that  in  several  instances  the 
worms  have  been  observed  at  even  earlier  dates  than  those  given  above;. 
7ci 


98  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

The  extracts  are  from  the  answers  to  the  question,  "Date  when  the  first 
worms  have  been  noticed  in  your  locality  I " 

In  1875,  they  appeared  the  8th  of  May;  1876,  1st  June.— [J.  H.  Krancher,  Millheim, 
Austin  County,  Texas.] 

Worms  were  seen  in  1873  in  May. — [H.  Hawkins,  Hawkinsville,  Barbour  County, 
Alabama.] 

I  have  seen  a  well-developed  caterpillar  eating  the  cotton  when  I  was  putting  it  to 
stand  in  May,  but  the  appearance  then  was  no  sign  that  they  destroyed  the  crop  ear- 
lier than  usual ;  did  not  propogate  or  do  any  harm  until  the  season  of  the  year  usual, 
from  June  on. — [A.  Jay,  Jaysville,  Conecuh  County,  Alabama.] 

Late  in  May  or  early  in  June. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autaugaville,  Autauga  County, 
Alabama.  ] 

In  1873.  I  saw  them  as  early  as  20th  of  May.— [R.  S.  Williams,  Mount  Meigs,  Mont- 
gomery County,  Alabama.] 

The  first  appearance  of  the  worms  is  difficult  to  ascertain,  from  the  fact  that  they 
are  so  few  at  first  and  scattered  over  so  large  an  area  of  cotton  fields.  The  negroes 
who  mostly  cultivate  these  fields  say  that  the  first  worms  appear  sooner  than  we 
imagine  (say  some  time  in  May).  Our  own  observation  is  that  the  eggs  of  the  moth 
are  deposited  when  the  cotton  begins  to  bloom ;  and  this  is  later  some  years  than 
others.  The  average  time  is  the  first  week  in  June  on  the  earliest  cotton  stalks. — 
[Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Mount  Meigs,  Montgomery  County,  Alabama.] 

Early  in  May,  1868,  I  found  several  worms  in  different  localities. — [P.  T.  Graves, 
Bnrkville,  Lowndes  County,  Alabama.  ] 

On  swamp  land,  May  31,  1877.— [J.  H.  Smith  and  J.  F.  Calhoun,  Minter,  Dallas 
County,  Alabama.] 

May  12. — J.  A.  Callaway,  Snowdown,  Montgomery  County,  Alabama. 

The  first  worms  that  I  have  ever  known  were  reported  as  early  as  May  1. — [R.  W. 
Russell,  Lowndesborough,  Lowndes  County,  Alabama. 

I  think  there  is  a  pretty  good  brood  hatched  out  in  May  and  early  in  June  that 
would  destroy  the  crop  but  for  the  plowing  that  shakes  them  off  the  stalks  and  covers 
them  with  earth. — [  J.  W.  Burke,  Faye.tte,  Jefferson  County,  Mississippi. 

May,  June,  July,  August.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Woodville,  Wilkinson  County,  Missis- 
sippi. 

I  have  had  my  neighbors  tell  me  that  they  found  the  genuine  army  worm  on  the 
young  cotton  plants  when  working  them  for  the  first  time — scraping  and  chopping 
out,  but  I  cannot  say  that  I  have  seen  any  so  early  myself.  These  persons  were  reli- 
.able  and  I  have  governed  myself  in  planting  by  what  they  reported  to  me. — [Douglass 
M.  Hamilton,  Saint  Francisville,  West  Feliciana  County,  Louisiana.  ] 

Last  of  May  on  my  place ;  have  heard  of  them  in  other  localities  sooner. — [Wm.  A. 
Harris,  Isabella,  Worth  County,  Georgia. 

1869;  May  12,  1873;  May  24,  1877;  June  19, 1878;  June  15.— [Robert  Gamble,  Talla- 
hassee, Leon  Connty,  Florida. 

Sometimes  as  early  as  May.— [J.  D.  Driesbach,  Tensaw,  Baldwin  County,  Alabama. 

The  17th  of  May,  1874.— [P.  D.  Bowles,  Evergreen,  Conecuh  County,  Alabama. 

Thus  we  see  that  there  is  not  as  long  an  interval  between  the  disap- 
pearance of  the  last  brood  in  the  fall  and  the  appearance  of  the  first 
brood  in  the  spring  as  there  has  been  supposed  to  be.  In  fact  the  inter- 
val is  as  short  as  possible ;  for  the  moths  oviposit  on  the  cotton  as  soon 
as  there  is  sufficient  food  for  the  Iarva3.  The  first  larva  found  by  Mr. 
Ttelease  this  season  had  consumed  several  plants. 

A  topic  of  scarcely  less  interest  than  the  date  at  which  the  cotton-worms 
first  appear  is  th  e  localities  in  which  the  first  brood  occurs.  Every  planter 


HIBERNATION.  99 

with  whom  we  have  conversed  on  the  subject  informs  us  that  in  each 
locality  the  worms  first  appear  on  a  certain  plantation,  and  on  a  very 
limited  part  of  that  plantation.  We  examined  several  of  these  places 
carefully,  bat  found  no  striking  local  peculiarities.  They  all  agree,  how- 
ever, in  being  on  low  land  and  where  the  cotton  has  a  thrifty  growth. 
In  connection  with  this  testimony  of  the  planters,  we  must  take  into  ac- 
count the  fact  that  they  seldom  observe  the  worms  till  the  latter  part  of 
June  or  even  till  July.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  it  is  the  first  "  crop  " 
of  worms  that  appear  in  the  above  described  localities,  and  that  the 
testimony  has  but  little  bearing  ou  the  origin  of  the  first  brood.  As  yet 
we  have  but  little  data  upon  this  point ;  but  that  which  we  have  indi- 
cates that  the  first  brood  of  worms  is  scattered  indiscriminately  over 
those  sections  in  which  they  occur.  Specimens  of  the  first  brood  were 
found  by  Mr.  Trelease  on  cotton  growing  on  bottom  land,  in  a  swamp, 
on  an  elevation  rising  from  this,  and  on  a  ridge  considerably  distant  from 
the  swamp.  Thus  no  local  peculiarities  of  the  soil  seem  to  influence  the 
distribution  of  the  worms,  except  that  where  the  cotton  is  the  earliest 
the  moths  first  find  a  place  to  oviposit. 

We  have  therefore  a  very  interesting  problem  presented  to  us.  Why 
is  it  that  if  individuals  of  the  first  brood  of  worms  occur  indiscrimin- 
ately on  cotton  growing  on  wet  and  on  dry  land,  that  the  greater  pro- 
portion of  the  second  or  third  brood  (the  first  crop)  is  found  only  on 
low,  wet  lands?  The  only  explanation  we  can  offer,  so  far,  is  that  in  the 
wet  lands  there  is  but  little  to  check  the  natural  increase  of  the  species ; 
while  in  dry  lands  the  predaceous  insects,  especially  ants,  destroy  a 
large  proportion  of  the  larvae  of  the  earlier  broods.  This  point  will  be 
referred  to  again  in  the  chapter  on  influence  of  weather. 

It  has  often  been  asserted,  especially  by  those  who  advocate  the 
theory  of  immigrations  of  the  moth,  that  the  cotton- worm  appears  first 
in  the  western  and  southern  portions  of  the  cotton  belt,  and  progresses 
regularly  toward  the  east  and  north.  But  this  does  not  seem  to  be  the 
case.  As  we  have  already  shown,  in  the  spring  of  the  present  year 
(1879)  the  worms  were  in  Central  Alabama  as  early  as  there  was  food  for 
them.  And  in  1873,  when  the  first  brood  was  so  large  as  to  attract  gen- 
eral attention,  the  worms  appeared  simultaneously  (during  May)  in 
Jackson  County  and  Gadsden  County,  Florida,  Decatur  County,  Geor- 
gia, Marion  County,  Mississippi,  and  Atascosa  County  and  Victoria 
County,  Texas.* 

HIBERNATION. 

How  does  the  cotton- worm  pass  the  winter  ?  This  is  a  question  most 
often  asked  respecting  this  insect,  and  as  yet  the  answers  have  been 
only  theories.  Many  have  believed  that  the  pupae  of  the  last  brood  pass 
the  winter  in  the  ground.  This  we  now  know  cannot  be  the  case,  as  the 
larvae  of  the  last  brood  web  up  in  leaves  in  a  similar  way  as  do  the 

*  Monthly  reports  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  1873,  p.  23-9. 


100  REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

larvae  of  other  broods,  and  those  pupae  which  fall  to  the  ground  on  ac- 
count of  the  destruction  of  their  leafy  covering  are  soon  destroyed  by 
ants.  Even  if  they  were  not  destroyed,  they  have  no  power  of  working 
their  way  into  the  earth,  as  has  been  supposed  by  many.  Of  the  very 
many  pupae  which  have  been  found  in  the  ground  and  sent  to  this  de- 
partment by  persons  supposing  them  to  be  those  of  the  cotton-worm, 
not  one  has  proved  to  be  such.  Many  moths  closely  related  to  the  cot- 
ton-worm— that  is,  belonging  to  the  same  family  (the  Noctuidae) — pass 
the  winter  in  the  ground  in  the  pupa  state.  It  is  such  pupae,  and  espe- 
cially those  of  the  boll-worm,  that  have  been  mistaken  for  those  of  the 
cotton- worm. 

It  has  been  contended  by  some  that  if  the  cotton- worm  survived  the 
winter  in  the  United  States,  it  would  exist  in  such  numbers  in  the 
spring  that  it  would  sweep  away  the  young  cotton  plants  at  once.  But, 
from  what  we  have  seen  of  the  disappearance  of  the  "  third  crop  "  and 
of  the  last  brood,  it  is  evident  that  in  any  case  only  a  few  individ- 
uals survive  the  autumn.  Numerous  instances  of  pupae  which  were 
undoubtedly  those  of  the  cotton-worm  remaining  alive  after  heavy 
frosts,  and  even  till  midwinter,  are  on  record ;  but  it  is  a  suggestive 
fact  that  there  are  but  few  well  authenticated  instances  of  pupae 
producing  moths  after  heavy  frosts  have  occurred,  those  mentioned  in 
the  letters  of  Professors  Smith  and  Willet,  quoted  above,  being  the 
only  ones  known  to  us.  Is  it  not  probable  that  observers  have  been 
misled  by  the  movements  of  pupae  containing  parasites  ?  Every  ento- 
mologist knows  that  dead  pupae  are  frequently  seen  to  roll  about  as  if 
alive,  the  motions  being  due  to  the  parasite  within.  One  of  the  most 
interesting  of  the  published  observations  on  this  point  is  the  following, 
by  William  Jones,  in  the  Southern  Cultivator,  March  1,  1869 : 

Last  fall  we  watched  the  caterpillar  up  to  the  time  when  their  operations  were 
suspended  by  a  severe  frost.  We  found  large  numbers  killed  by  the  cold — a  few,  in 
sheltered  spots  still  alive.  Many  were  caught  just  beginning  to  wind  up  and  prepar- 
ing to  pass  into  the  chrysalid  state,  whilst  the  chrysalids  were  in  every  stage  up  to 
the  point  of  being  ready  to  come  out  as  moths.  On  the  edge  of  tho  field  the  chrysa- 
lids were  attached  to  briars  and  weeds,  having  wound  themselves  up  in  their  leaves 
(which  winding  up  in  leaves  is,  so  far  as  we  have  observed,  their  invariable  habit). 
We  collected  a  large  number  of  these  chrysalids,  and,  inclosing  them  in  a  bag,  hung 
them  up  in  a  porch  facing  northward.  The  thermometer  indicated  : 

November  2,  30°. 

November  20,  28°. 

November  22,  25°. 

November  23,  24°. 

December  2,  27°. 

December  12,  12°. 

December  13,  16°. 

We  examined  them  on  the  14th  of  December,  and  found  them  still  alive.  On  exam- 
ining the  bag  again,  about  the  last  of  December,  to  our  very  great  disappointment,  we 
found  that  a  bird  had  pierced  the  bag  and  eaten  them.  Wo  shall  have  to  wait,  there- 
fore, another  opportunity  to  test  the  manner  in  which  the  insect  passes  through  the 
winter.  About  the  middle  of  February  we  visited  the  aatno  field  again ;  a  majority  of 


SEAECH    FOR   HIBERNATING   INDIVIDUALS.  101 

chrysalid  cases  (which  were  still  abundant)  we  found  empty,  with  every  indication  of 
the  insect  having  matured  and  escaped.  A  limited  number  we  found  apparently  un- 
changed, and  started  back  rejoicing  that  we  had  been  able  to  replace  those  destroyed 
by  the  bird ;  but,  alas,  upon  accidentally  crushing  one,  we  found  within  it  an  ich- 
neumon, and  this  proved  to  be  the  case  with  all  we  had  collected.  Some  of  the  ich- 
neumons had  completed  their  transformation,  and  were  about  to  come  out  as  perfect 
insects. 

Many  planters  believe  that  they  hare  seen  the  adult  during  winter 
and  early  spring.  But  in  every  instance  when  such  moths  have  been 
sent  to  an  entomologist  they  have  proved  to  belong  to  some  other  spe- 
cies than  Aletia  argillacea.  Many  moths  were  sent  to  this  department 
during  the  past  winter,  by  persons  supposing  them  to  be  cotton-moth  ; 
but  in  every  instance,  with  one  possible  exception,  they  proved  to  be- 
long to  other  species.  The  only  instance  where  there  is  any  doubt  is  in 
the  case  of  some  moths  collected  by  Judge  J.  F.  Baily,  of  Marion,  Ala. 
Eespecting  these  moths,  Judge  Baily  writes : 

They  appeared  the  last  days  of  February  in  swarms,  about  dusk,  around  the 
roofs  of  the  houses,  as  if  they  had  come  from  the  shingles  as  winter  quarters.  Since 
their  first  appearance  in  February,  I  have  seen  them  every  pleasant  evening,  in  the 
twilight,  sporting  first  around  the  plum  blooms,  and  then  around  the  peach,  the  mock- 
orange,  the  Chinese  quince,  and  other  blooms. 

Specimens  of  the  moths  were  sent  to  Prof.  E.  A.  Smith,  to  wh6m  the 
letter  from  which  we  have  just  quoted  was  addressed.  Professor  Smith 
forwarded  the  specimens  to  the  department,  but  they  never  reached  their 
destination.  At  a  later  date  Professor  Smith  writes  : 

I  am  sorry  you  did  not  receive  the  moths  which  I  sent  yon  from  Judge  Baily.  They 
were  very  much  rubbed,  and  I  could  not  be  sure  about  them,  still  they  did  not  appear 
to  me  to  be  the  cotton-moth. 

At  a  still  later  date  Professor  Smith  wrote : 

I  have  just  returned  from  a  trip  to  Marion,  where  I  saw  Judge  Baily.  Judge  Baily 
has  never  since  that  time  seen  any  of  the  moths  which  were  so  abundant  a  month  or 
two  ago;  he  will  try  his  best  to  collect  a»y  moth  that  resembles  Aletia,  and  I  think  if 
it  visits  his  neighborhood  he  will  observe  it.  I  am  very  doubtful  if  what  he  sent 
me  and  I  sent  to  you  was  the  true  cotton-moth ;  it  resembled  Leucania  unipuncta. 

During  the  winter  of  1878-'79  the  following  named  local  observers  for 
this  department  were  on  the  look  out  for  living  pupae  or  adults  of  A. 
argillacea:  Professor  Willet,  at  Macon,  Ga.;  Professor  Smith,  at  Tusca- 
loosa,  Ala.;  Dr.  Anderson,  at  Kirk  wood,  Miss.,  and  Judge  Jones?  at  Vir- 
ginia Point,  Tex.  ]^ot  one  of  these  gentlemen  was  successful.  Profes- 
sor Smith,  in  particular,  made  great  exertions  to  obtain  specimens  of 
the  adult.  He  had  sweetened  mixtures  for  attracting  moths  exposed 
during  the  entire  winter ;  but  although  he  constantly  obtained  other 
moths,  as  already  stated,  not  a  single  Aletia  was  found.  It  is  important 
to  note  that  Professor  Smith's  observations  were  made  at  a  point  which 
may  be  farther  north  than  the  cotton-moth  can  hibernate.  But  in  the 
latter  part  of  December  Professor  Willet  made  a  trip  to  Southern  Georgia, 
where  a  careful  search  was  rewarded  only  by  a  few  dead  pupae  and 
many  empty  pupa-skins;  the  latter  were  found  in  dead  wood  and  under 


102  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

bark  of  pine  trees ;  many  were  also  taken  from  ragweed  on  edge  of  a 
cotton  field. 

In  addition  to  the  efforts  of  the  local  observers,  Mr.  Schwarz,  who  has 
had  a  wide  and  very  successful  experience  as  a  field  entomologist,  made 
an  extended  tour  through  the  cotton  belt,  in  order  to  ascertain  what  he 
could  respecting  the  winter  quarters  of  this  insect. 

Mr.  Schwarz  was  no  more  successful  in  this  particular  than  were  his 
colaborers.  As  he  did  not  include  the  details  of  this  trip  in  his  report, 
which  is  published  in  Appendix  I  of  this  work,  the  following  account 
of  his  journey  will  be  of  interest  as  bearing  on  the  question  of  hiberna- 
tion. 

Mr.  Schwarz  proceeded  from  Washington  to  Galveston,  Tex.,  which 
point  he  reached  December  5.  He  made  a  short  and  unavailing  search 
with  Judge  Jones,  and  then  proceeded  to  Columbia,  Brazoria  County. 
From  that  point  he  writes : 

After  two  days  digging  in  the  cotton  field,  with  the  assistance  of  a  negro,  I  have 
satisfied  myself  that  neither  on  the  cotton  plant  nor  in  the  ground  is  to  be  found  a 
single  trace  of  the  hibernation  of  Aletia  argillacea,  at  least  in  this  portion  of  the  cot- 
ton belt.  It  remains  to  look  for  the  moth  in  the  woods,  which,  with  their  countless 
trunks  and  logs  of  live-oak  (there  are  no  pine  trees  here),  afford  plenty  of  shelter.  I 
began  to  look  in  these  old  trees  and  under  bark,  and  by  smoking  in  cracks  of  logs  I 
captured  a  few  other  'Noctuidae,  but  no  Aletia.  I  tried  sugaring  some  trees  last  night, 
but  with  no  success. 

I  also  tried  lanterns  and  caught  a  few  Noctuidae,  but  no  A.  argillacea.  I  shall  con- 
tinue to  look  for  it  in  the  woods,  but  I  have  given  up  the  hope  of  finding  the  chrysalis  in 
the  ground,  and  in  this  last  conclusion  the  farmers  of  the  Brazos  bottom  agree  with 
me. 

Thence  he  proceeded  to  San  Antonio  and  from  there  to  Columbus, 
Colorado  County,  which  he  reached  December  25.  Investigations  here 
resulted  in  the  finding  of  four  parasitized  chrysalides.  Hearne,  Tex.,  was 
his  next  point  of  destination ;  and  from  there  he  returned  to  Galveston 
and  went  by  boat  to  New  Orleans.  From  this  place  he  writes  as  fol- 
lows, giving  his  explanation  of  his  want  of  success : 

After  more  than  four  weeks  experience  in  the  South  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  Aletia  argillacea  hibernates  in  the  United  States.  The  reasons  which  lead  me  to 
believe  this  are,  first,  the  gradual  increase  in  the  number  from  the  very  few  specimens 
in  the  first  generation  to  the  myriads  of  the  last,  generation.  Second,  that  A.  argillacea 
has  been  observed  much  earlier  in  the  season  than  is  generally  believed.  One  of  the 
best  observers  I  met,  Mr.  G.  Little,  has  seen  the  worms  on  the  10th  of  May.  It  seems 
to  me,  therefore,  an  established  fact  that  very  few  specimens  of  A.  argillacea  appear 
very  early  in  the  season,  and  probably  those  only  in  the  bottoin-lands.  It  appears  to 
me  highly  improbable  that  these  few  specimens  should  immigrate  from  the  South, 
year  after  year,  or  at  least  duriug  the  past  ten  years.  1  think  if  the  moth  is  migratory 
in  its  habits  it  would  appear  suddenly  in  considerable  numbers.  (I  do  not  know 
upon  what  grounds  the  theory  of  thrt  "  three  generations  "  of  the  cotton- worm  is  founded, 
but  I  cannot  see  how  this  insect  which  transforms  in  less  than  four  weeks  should  pass 
through  only  three  generations  if  it  appears  as  soon  as  the  beginning  of  May).  It  is 
certainly  much  more  natural  to  assume  that  a  few,  perhaps  only  a  very  few  specimens  of 
the  moth,  probably  impregnated  females,  do  hibernate.  There  is,  of  course,  but  little 
chance  to  find  one  of  these  hibernating  specimens  owing  to  the  multitude  of  hiding 


NOTES    OF   MR.    SCHWAEZ's   JOURNEY.  103 

places  and  the  difficulty,  or  rather;  impossibility,  of  making  a  thorough  investigation 
in  this  respect.  In  my  opinion  the  least  difficult  way  of  solving  this  vexed  question 
would  be  to  place,an  observer  at  some  suitable  point  in  the  South,  who  should  from 
the  very  first  warm  day  of  the  year,  say  the  1st  of /February,  go  out  every  evening  with 
lanterns  and  try  the  experiment  of  sugaring  trees.  If  this  course  were  followed  I 
think  he  would  be  able  to  find  Af  argillacea.  To  find  the  moth  in  the  winter  time  in 
the  cracks  of  the  countless  old  live-oaks  in  the  bottom-lands  is  a  matter  of  mere 
chance. 

At  Bayou  Sara,  La.,  Mr.  Schwarz  made  a  thorough  search  for  hiber- 
nating moths  under  the  bark  of  trees  surrounding  the  field,  and  in 
similar  places,  but  without  success.  From  a  letter  dated  Yicksburg, 
Miss.,  January  28,  we  extract  the  following : 

Since  I  wrote  you  my  last  letter  I  have  continued  my  efforts  to  find  hibernating 
individuals  of  Aletia.  Favored  by  the  mild  weather,  I  have  hunted  every  day  from 
morning  until  evening  with  this  sole  object  in  view,  and  have  certainly  made  a 
thorough  investigation  of  the  country  around  Bayou  Sara  and  -Francisville.  I  never 
saw  a  country  better  suited  for  this  purpose  than  the  valleys  and  bluff's  in  West  Fe- 
liciana  Parish;  but  my  efforts  were  all  in  vain,  and  I  failed  completely  to  discover 
any  trace  of  the  hibernation  of  the  moth.  However,  my  belief  in  the  hibernation  of 
the  cotton-insect  is  not  shaken  by  this  failure,  but  I  must  confess  that  I  feel  very 
much  discouraged  after  this  fortnight  of  uninterrupted  effort,  and  almost  despair  of 
finding  the  moth.  But  this  failure  does  not  by  any  means  warrant  the  acceptation  of 
the  theory  of  the  annual  migration  of  the  moth,  as  I  can  prove  by  the  following  facts  : 
During  the  last  warm  days  the  country  around  Bayou  Sara  has  been  swarming  with 
Vanessa  Atlanta,  and  I  have  never  been  able  to  find  a  single  living  specimen  of  the  per- 
fect insect,  or  a  living  pupa  in  winter  quarters.  I  could  add  similar  instances,  e.  g., 
Orchestria  vittata  and  Dibolia  aerea  among  the  Coleoptera  have  during  the  last  warm 
days  been  commonly  seen  flying  about  or  sitting  on  fence  posts,  etc.,  and  I  have  never 
succeeded  in  finding  these  species  in  their  winter  quarters.  I  repeat  that  the  vast 
majority  of  hiding  places  best  suited  for  the  hibernation  of  a  Lepidopteron — I  mean 
the  cracks  in  dry,  solid  timber — are  inaccessible,  and  the  investigation  of  the  few  of 
these  cracks  which  are  accessible  is  connected  with  considerable  difficulty  aud  loss  of 
time.  If  we  are  unable  to  find  even  very  common  insects  in  their  winter'  quarters,  we 
ought  not  to  be  astonished  if  we  are  unable  to  find  the  cotton-moth,  which,  if  it 
hibernates  here,  does  so  certainly  in  very  small  numbers. 

A  letter  from  Mobile,  Ala.,  February  17,  contains  the  following  : 

Since  leaving  Vicksburg  I  have  traveled  through  the  central  portions  of  the  cotton 
belts  of  Mississippi  and  Alabama,  stopping  at  Jackson,  Canton,  Kirkwood,  Meridian, 
and  Tuscaloosa.  During  all  this  time  the  weather  has  been  unfavorable  ;  in  fact  since 
I  left  Bayou  Sara  there  has  been  nothing  but  rain  and  cold.  However,  it  was  with 
great  interest  that  I  entered  this  part  of  the  cotton  belt,  as  I  found  here  for  the  first 
time  fine  lands  where  a  thorough  search  for  A.  argillacea  is  much  more  easily  made 
than  in  the  more  southern  bottom-lands,  which  are  full  of  thick  forests  of  live-oak. 
But  after  excursions  made  at  the  places  mentioned,  and  after  the  information  I  re- 
ceived regarding  the  appearance  of  the  cotton-worm  last  year,  I  feel  fully  convinced 
that  this  insect  does  not  hibernate  in  any  stage  in  the  upland  cotton  districts  of  Mis- 
sissippi and  Alabama. 

In  the  course  of  the  journey  mentioned  in  the  above  extract  Mr. 
Schwarz  spent  some  time  with  Dr.  Anderson,  in  Kirkwood,  Miss.,  and 
with  Prof.  E.  A.  Smith,  in  Tuscaloosa,  Ala.  Mr.  Schwarz  says  in  the 
last  quoted  letter : 

Dr.  Anderson  thinks  that  the  following  conditions  favorable  to  the  hibernation  of 
the  pupa  may  occur :  First,  the  chrysalis  might  fall  to  the  ground  and  be  accidently 


104  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

covered  by  leaves  and  other  debris.  Second,  it  might  be  carried  into  the  gin-lionses 
and  covered  with  old  seeds  or  refuse  cotton,  &c. 

The  first  case  is  very  improbable,  in  my  opinion,  as  the  chrysalid  would  certainly  be 
killed  by  the  mold,  or  the  decay  brought  on  by  moisture.  In  regard  to  the  second 
case  I  must  confess  that  I  consider  it  very  possible  provided  that  Dr.  Anderson's  ob- 
servation be  correct.  While  in  Hearne,  I  examined  the  refuse  cotton  of  a  gin-house, 
and  subsequently  again  near  Canton,  but  without  success.  The  possibility,  however, 
that  the  pupa  could  hibernate  in  such  places  cannot  be  denied. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  Professor  Smith  and  Dr.  Anderson  do  not  reside  in  the 
southern  extremities  of  the  cotton  belt,  as  there  is  no  question  in  my  mind  but  that 
A.  argillacea  spreads  from  there  to  the  more  northern  portions  every  year;  and  that 
the  question  of  the  hibernation  of  this  insect  can  only  be  solved  by  patient  observa- 
tions in  these  southern  bottom-lands. 

Professor  Smith,  whose  house  is  well  situated  for  observation,  as  his  own  cotton 
field  is  close  by,  will  certainly  fail  in  finding  the  cotton-moth  on  his  sugared  trees, 
although  he  is  "baiting"  his  trees  every  warm  evening. 

As  a  very  good  place  for  observations  to  be  taken  early  in  the  spring,  I  would  recom- 
mend Columbus,  Tex.,  or  one  of  the  other  great  bottom-lands  of  the  State.  In  South- 
ern Louisiana  the  bottom-lands,  or  rather  the  low  alluvial  lands,  are  exclusively 
devoted  to  the  cultivation  of  the  sugar-cane.  The  Mississippi  bottom-land  in  the 
Louisiana  cotton  belt  is  not  extensive  enough  for  such  observation.  In  the  interior  of 
Louisiana  and  throughout  Mississippi  the  true  bottom-lands  are  not  cultivated  gener- 
ally because  they  are  subject  to  frequent  overflows ;  this,  however,  is  not  the  case 
with  those  in  Texas. 

From  Mobile,  Mr.  Schwarz  proceeded  to  Tallahassee,  Fla.,  by  way  of 
Eufaula,  Ala.  In  a  letter  of  February  26,  from  the  latter  place,  he  says: 

I  spent  a  whole  day  on  Mr.  Donovan's  plantation  in  hunting  for  Aletia  argillacea, 
but  with  no  success.  Near  the  cotton  field  begins  a  very  large  thick  hummock,  where 
a  thorough  investigation  is  altogether  impossible.  *  *  In  order  to  go  from 

Mobile  to  Florida  I  had  to  make  a  detour  by  way  of  Eufaula.  At  this  place  I  had  to 
wait  four  days  for  the  steamer.  However,  I  was  not  sorry  to  be  detained  at  Eufaula, 
as  cotton  is  most  extensively  planted  in  the  vicinity  of  the  place,  and  as  I  have  found 
here  for  the  first  time  a  locality  where  hiding  places  for  hibernation  of  the  moth  are 
comparatively  scarce.  I  had  thus  an  opportunity  to  make  in  two  days  a  systematic 
and  thorough  exploration  of  the  broad  valley  of  a  little  creek.  In  fact  I  looked  every- 
where except  in  the  roofs  of  the  houses.  Moreover,  several  fields  were  just  plowed, 
and  I  had  again  occasion  to  convince  myself  that  there  are  no  pupae  of  A.  argillacea 
in  the  ground.  I  repeat  here  that  I  feel  more  than  ever  convinced  that  the  insect 
does  not  hibernate  in  these  more  northern  portions  of  the  cotton  belt. 

In  his  first  letter  from  Tallahassee,  February  28,  we  find  the  follow- 
ing : 

I  would  like  to  add  that  Dr.  Anderson's  assertion  that  he  saw  A.  argillacea  flying 
during  the  warm  spell  in  January  is  quite  incorrect.  The  doctor,  like  Prof. 
E.  A.  Smith  and  myself,  as  well  as  others,  saw  only  other  Noctuids  flying  about  the 
houses,  and  they  almost  exclusively  belonged  to  a  single  very  common  species  (I  think 
it  is  Boarmia),  which  I  find  everywhere,  under  bark,  in  cracks  in  fences,  flying  during 
the  warm  hours  of  'the  day,  at  night,  &c.  Very  often  and  in  many  places  I  heard  the 
opinion  that  Aletia  argillacea  hibernates  as  a  moth,  because  it  has  been  seen  flying  in 
warm  evenings  during  the  winter  ;  but  I  have  never  found  a  man  who  actually  knows 
what  Aletia  argillacea  is  among  the  flying  moths. 

In  his  second  letter  from  Tallahassee,  March  5,  he  writes  as  follows : 

After  three  months'  traveling  through  cold  and  rain,  I  find  here  in  Florida  most 
.  glorious,  warm  weather,  and  during  my  stay  in  Tallahassee  I  did  not  lose  a  single  day 


NOTES    FROM    TALLAHASSEE,    FLA.  105 

by  rain.  But  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  notwithstanding  all  my  efforts  I  have  failed 
again  to  find  Aletia,  although  the  country  here  looked  very  promising. 

The  country  in  the  vicinity  of  this  city  is  very  rolling,  almost  hilly,  and  numerous 
ponds,  here  called  "beautiful  lakes,"  are  in  the  depressions;  but  there  are  no  large 
creeks  or  rivers  here.  It  is  not  at  all  a  "bottom-laud,"  but  cotton  is  planted  under 
various  conditions:  on  top  of  the  hills  in  sandy  soils,  on  dry  "hummock  land,"  and  on 
the  edges  of  the  ponds.  The  growth  of  the  plant  is  here  better  than  I  have  seen  since 
leaving  Bayou  Sara. 

The  cotton-worm  makes  its  appearance  here  every  year  in  large  numbers,  and  very 
early  in  the  season ;  several  planters  are  positive  of  having  seen  the  worm  in  the  lat- 
ter part  of  May.  In  other  words,  here  again  is  a  district  where  it  is  more  than  prob- 
able that  A.  argittacea  is  indigenous.  The  worms  are  injurious  every  year,  as  nothing 
is  done  here  for  their  destruction  except  some  occasional  attempts  with  Paris  green. 
The  damage  is  never  uniformly  distributed,  owing  doubtless  to  the  nature  of  the  coun- 
try. In  1878  the  worms  injured  only  the  cotton  on  the  lower  fields,  but  from  contra- 
dictory statements  I  find  it  impossible  to  give  the  exact  amount  of  damage  done. 
When  the  owner  of  a  field  says  that  in  1878  the  worms  destroyed  his  entire  cotton  crop, 
and  his  neighbor,  speaking  of  the  same  field,  asserts  that  the  worms  did  but  little 
harm,  it  is  rather  difficult  to  find  out  the  truth.  However,  it  is  certain  that  in  1878  they 
had  here  a  fair  crop,  amounting  in  average  from  three-fourths  of  a  bale  to  one  bale  per 
acre.  v 

This  locality  is  most  promising  for  the  purpose  of  hunting  A.  argillacea  ;  as,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  large  hammocks,  hiding  places  for  hibernation  are  not  so  abundant 
as  in  the  other  southernmost  cotton  districts  which  I  have  visited.  Induced  by  my 
previous  failure  to  find  the  imago  of  A.  argillacea,  and  influenced  somewhat  by  Dr. 
Anderson's  assertion  that  four  pupae  had  survived  the  cold  weather  of  December,  I 
spent  considerable  time  in  looking  for  pupse  in  places  where  they  might  have  found 
accidental  shelter.  Such  places  are  the  gin-houses,  and  when  the  cotton  fields  run  on 
a  half-cleared  hammock  where  numerous  fallen  leaves  have  accumulated.  But  all 
the  pupae  found  in  such  places  were  unfortunately  either  empty  or  frozen,  and  I  did 
not  even  find  parasites,  although  I  found  several  pupae  from  which  the  parasites  had 
escaped.  A  number  of  eggs  (I  send  them  with  this)  which  I  found  during  a  most 
careful  examination  of  a  gin-house  do  not  appear  to  be  those  of  Aletia.  As  at  this 
season  there  is  much  plowing  going  on,  I  had  ample  opportunity  to  convince  myself 
that  no  pupae  are  in  the  ground.  I  offered  a  prize  of  five  cents  for  each  pupa  brought  to 
me,  and  received  eight.  All,  however,  were  killed  by  the  frost,  and  it  is  certain  that 
not  a  single  pupa  of  the  number  was  found  in  the  ground.  One  negro  brought  me  a 
large  Attacus  pupa  as  the  "web"  of  the  cotton-worm,  and  wished  ten  cents  for  it  on 
account  of  its  size. 

The  few  hammocks  in  the  vicinity  of  Tallahassee  are  quite  large,  and,  of  course,  are 
full  of  very  tall,  old  trees,  and  a  thorough  exploration  of  them  is  out  of  the  question. 

From  Tallahassee  Mr.  Schwarz  proceeded  to  Savannah,  Ga.,  via 
Gainesville,  Fla.  In  the  latter  place  he  found  no  trace  of  the  cotton- 
moth.  While  at  Savannah  he  visited  Saint  Simon's,  one  of  the  Sea 
Islands.  Concerning  the  results  he  states : 

I  am  sorry  to  say  that  I  have  failed  again  to  find  any  trace  of  Aletia  argillacea, 
although  these  Sea  Islands  are  most  favorable  for  an  investigation.  The  woods,  half 
hammock  and  half  pine  woods,  peculiar  to  the  islands,  are  very  open,  and  hollow  trees, 
&e.,  are  comparatively  scarce. 

From  Savannah  Mr.  Schwarz  took  steamer  to  the  Bahamas;  and  as  an 
account  of  the  results  of  this  trip  are  given  in  Appendix  I,  further  quo- 
tations from  letters  will  be  unnecessary. 

In  considering  the  results  of  Mr.  Schwarz's  observations,  it  should  be 


106  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

remembered  that  during  the  greater  part  of  the  time  while  he  was  in 
the  field  the  weather  was  unusually  cold,  so  that  hibernating  insects 
would  not  be  likely  to  be  out  from  their  places  of  concealment ;  and  that, 
as  Mr.  Schwarz  has  well  said,  the  failure  to  find  the  hiding  place  of  the 
cotton-moth  is  not  proof  that  the  species  does  not  hibernate,  for  he  also 
failed  to  find  in  their  winter  quarters  other  insects  which  are  very  com- 
mon, and  respecting  the  hibernation  of  which  there  is  no  doubt. 

Although  we  firmly  believe  (both  from  the  a  posteriori  reasons,  which 
will  be  given  at  length  in  the  chapter  on  the  theory  of  migrations,  and 
from  positive  evidence  to  be  soon  brought  forward)  that  the  cotton- 
moth  hibernates  in  some  portions  of  the  cotton  belt  of  the  United  States, 
we  have  given  these  negative  results  at  length,  not  merely  for  their 
purely  scientific  interest,  but  as  furnishing  valuable  data  to  be  used  in 
making  plans  for  the  destruction  of  this  pest. 

The  undoubted  positive  evidence  of  the  hibernation  of  this  insect  con- 
sists of  a  very  limited  number  of  observations ;  for  although  we  believe 
that  some  at  least  of  the  many  planters  who  think  they  have  observed 
the  cotton-moth  in  midwinter  and  early  spring  are  right,  still  the  fact 
that  in  every  instance  when  specimens  of  the  moths  observed  have  been 
sent  to  entomologists  it  has  been  found  that  some  other  species  has  been 
mistaken  for  Aletia  argillacea  prevents  our  accepting  testimony  of  this 
kind. 

The  following  list  comprises  the  names  of  those  moths  which  have 
been  most  frequently  sent  to  this  department  by  persons  believing  them 
to  be  the  cotton -moth : 

Phoberia  atomaris  (moth),  Georgia. 
Hypena  scdbralis  (moth),  Georgia. 
Leucania  unipuncta  (moth),  Alabama. 
Drasteria  erechta,  moth. 
Agrotis  (several  species). 

But  we  cannot  doubt  the  statements  of  so  accurate  an  observer  as 
Mr.  Thomas  Affleck,  who  says,  in  his  Southern  Eural  Almanac,  1851, 
pp.  49,  50 : 

On  the  22d  of  December  last,  1849,  I  saw  great  numbers  of  the  cotton-moth  during 
the  dusk  of  the  evening  flitting  about  the  fence  corners,  dead  trees  which  still  retained 
their  bark,  and  about  certain  sheds  near  this  village — Washington,  Miss.  The  weather 
was  and  had  been  unseasonably  warm.  A  few  cool  days  followed,  during  which  I 
could  not  find  a  single  moth.  But  again,  on  the  27th  or  28th  of  the  same  month,  I 
saw  them  in  equal  numbers.  I  leave  it  to  naturalists  to  say  whether  or  no  this  settles 
the  question  of  hibernation.  It  is  positive  evidence,  so  far  as  it  goes.  Whether  they 
continued  to  exist  until  the  cotton  plant  was  large  enough  to  support  their  progeny 
I  cannot  say ;  nor  could  I  satisfy  myself  as  to  where  they  found  shelter. 

Equally  interesting  are  the  observations  of  Mr.  John  T.  Humphreys, 
late  naturalist  aiid  entomologist  to  the  State  department  of  agriculture 
of  Georgia,  who  says  in  a  letter  which  we  recently  received  from  him : 

.  1st.  Tlutt  it  hibernates  in  the  chrysalis  state.— This  may  be  true  of  other  "cut-worms" 
(which  in  some  cases  I  doubt,  while  in  others  I  know),  but  there  is  not  the  slightest 


FACTS    ON   HIBERNATION.  107 

warrant  for  any  such  supposition  iu  the  history  of  A.  argillacea  Hiibn.  This  question  I 
have  subjected  to  the  most  crucial  test,  selecting  3,200  larvae  and  noting  their  change 
into  the  pupa  state.  I  planted  them  in  detached  groups  (as  chrysalids),  under  dift'er- 
ent  soils,  and  at  different  depths  (the  latter  to  do  away  with  cavilings).  Some  I 
placed  just  beyond  the  frost-line,  others  at  the  line,  and,  again,  others  just  above  the 
line.  (Was  there  ever  a  chrysalid  foolish  enough,  when  forced  to  bury  itself  under 
terra  Jirma,  to  leave  its  work  of  protection  half-way  done!)  In  every  instance  the  pupa- 
tion under  ground  was  a  failure.  You  well  know  how  bewildered  an  ant  becomes 
when  its  antennae  are  removed ;  just  so  with  A.  argillacea  when  the  chrysalis  is  en- 
tombed. I  am  giving  you  general  outlines,  which,  I  am  sure  will  appear  plausible  to 
yon  as  an  insect  physiologist.  Two  of  these  moths  (preserved  in  my  cabinet)  did 
actually  burrow  upwards  from  a  depth  of  three  inches,  in  soil  that  was  quite  loose  and 
not  compacted  by  the  cold  and  the  winds  of  winter  (to  say  nothing  of  accidental  pres- 
sure), and  their  wings  were  so  much  mutilated  by  their  escape  as  to  serve  them  no 
longer  as  instruments  of  flight.  These  experiments,  repeated  over  and  over,  have  proven 
to  me  the  impossibility  of  anything  bordering  upon  a  general  pupation  of  A.  argillacea 
under  ground. 

2d.  That  it  hibernates  as  a  moth. — This  is  overwhelmingly  true.  Not  under  the  leaf- 
less stalks  of  cotton,  nor  under  the  clods  of  dirt  and  rocks  about  them,  but  beneath 
the  scales  of  pine  trees  in  neighboring  forests,  in  cotton-gin  houses  and  elsewhere 
(particularly  in  the  first-named),  have  I  found  the  A.  argillacea  in  numbers  from 
December  until  May,  wings  perfect,  no  scale  abrasions,  and  agility  equal  to  that  of 
any  brood.  I  have  found  the  moth  in  iron  concretions  not  far  from  Cuthbert  (Ran- 
dolph County,  Georgia),  in  the  vicinity  of  Burgess  Mills.  This"  curious  contrast  you 
may  note  en  passant,  while  the  first  broods  (May  to  June  16)  invariably  appear  first  in 
the  hammock-growth  bordered  plantations,  the  moths  of  the  last  brood  are  found  in 
midwinter  principally  amid  the  pine  growths.  On  this  point,  however,  I  have  no 
space  to  elaborate.  Your  own  reasoning  will  be  as  good  as  any  one  else. 

Iu  another  letter  Mr.  Humphreys  states : 

I  found  the  moth  (A.  argillacea  Hiibu)  hibernating  on  Saint  Simon's  Island,  Georgia, 
February,  1876,  and  near  Brunswick  at  the  same  time.  I  also  found  it  in  Randolph 
County,  Georgia,  November  8,  1876.  The  hibernating  moth  has  been  seen  in  barns 
and  cotton-gin  sheds  from  November  to  May,  in  the  counties  along  Chattahoochie 
River,  Decatur,  Early,  Clay,  and  in  Thomas,  Brooks,  Lowndes,  ontheGlyun  (Atlantic) 
coast. 

And  Professor  Grote  himself,  in  the  paper  in  which  he  proposes  the 
theory  of  migrations,  says  : 

The  last  brood  of  worms  changed  into  chrysalids  in  myriads  on  the  leafless  stems, 
clinging  by  their  few  threads  as  best  they  might,  and  disclosed  the  moth  in  the  face 
of  the  frost,  many  of  the  chrysalids  perishing.  Afterwards,  on  sunny  winter  days,  I 
have  noticed  the  live  moth  about  gin-houses  and  fodder-stacks,  or  the  negro  quarters. 

Professor  Grote  adds :  "  Was  this  a  true  hibernation,  or  merely  au 
accidental  survival  ?  The  locality  and  the  condition  seem  to  me  ..alike 
artificial."  It  appears  to  us  that  just  the  conditions  described  may  be 
found  on  any  plantation  in  the  South,  and  that  a  few  "accidental  sur- 
vivals" are  all  that  is  necessary  to  perpetuate  the  species  in  any  locality. 
It  has  often  been  urged,  by  those  who  believe  that  the  presence  of  the 
cotton-worm  in  our  country  is  dependent  upon  the  immigration  of  moths 
from  other  countries,  that,  did  the  species  hibernate  in  our  territory, 
the  moths  would  be  seen  early  in  the  spring.  We  believe  that  the  only 
reason  it  has  not  been  observed  at  that  season  of  the  year  is  that  it 
occurs  in  small  numbers  and  that  very  few  observers  have  thoroughly 


108  REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

searched  for  it  at  that  time.  That  moths  are  present  and  ovipositing 
on  the  cotton  very  soon  after  the  young  plants  emerge  from  the  ground 
has  already  been  shown  in  the  section  on  the  first  appearance  of  the 
worms. 

Our  conclusions  are  that  the  species  does  not  hibernate  as  a  pupa, 
but  that  in  certain  portions  of  our  cotton  belt  the  species  does  hibernate 
as  a  moth.  The  number  of  moths,  however,  which  survive  the  winter 
is  very  small  compared  with  the  number  of  pupae  of  the  last  brood  of 
the  previous  season. 

It  is  probable  that  of  those  moths  which  mature  before  frosts  sufficiently 
heavy  to  destroy  the  pupae  occur,  only  the  more  vigorous  individuals, 
and  of  them  especially  those  which  choose  unusually-protected  situa- 
tions for  their  winter  quarters,  are  able  to  survive  the  winter. 

As  to  localities  in  which  the  species  hibernates,  we  conclude  from  the 
data  drawn  from  a  study  of  the  past  history  of  the  insect  that  in  the 
following-named  places  the  moth  usually  survives  the  winter : 

Texas. — Principally  in  the  Colorado  and  Brazos  bottoms,  as  far  north 
as  Grimes  County  and  as  far  south  as  Victoria ;  occasionally  as  far 
north  as  Cherokee,  possibly  to  Upshur,  though  not  probable. 

Louisiana. — The  southeastern  parishes  along  the  river — East  and  West 
Feliciana,  East  Baton  Eouge,  and  Iberville;  possibly  Saint  Landry, 
Avoyelles,  Concordia  and  neighborhood. 

Mississippi. — The  southwestern  counties,  near  the  river — Wilkinson, 
Adams,  Amite,  &c. 

Alabama. — Principally  in  the  "cane-brake"  region;  possibly  in  the 
southeastern  counties,  along  the  Chattahoochee. 

Florida. — Principally  in  those  northern  counties  near  the  Appalachi- 
cola — Gadsden,  Jackson,  Leon,  &c.  j  possibly  in  adjoining  cotton-growing 
counties. 

Georgia. — Southwestern  counties — Decatur,  &c.,  along  the  Flint  and 
Chattahoochee  j  in  former  years  probably  in  the  Sea  Islands  and  coast 
counties. 


CHAPTEE    IV. 

THE  THEORY  OF  MIGRATIONS  OF  THE  MOTH. 

Although  we  have  expressed  our  belief,  in  Chapter  III  that  the  cotton- 
worm  hibernates  as  a  moth  in  certain  portions  of  the  United  States,  we 
feel  it  important  to  give  an  account  of  the  theory  of  migrations,  which 
has  played  so  prominent  a  part  in  the  discussion  repecting  this  insect. 
It  should  be  stated  that,  although  this  theory  is  now  held  by  but  few 
people,  among  the  number  are  those  who  rank  high  as  entomologists 
and  who  have  also  had  considerable  experience  in  the  study  of  this 
particular  species. 

In  order  to  give  those  who  have  proposed  this  theory  due  credit,  we 
will  state  it  in  their  own  words.  The  earliest  hint  that  we  have  found 
of  the  possibility  that  the  cotton- worm  may  be  brought  frequently  to 
this  country  from  regions  farther  south,  is  contained  in  the  following 
extract  from  a  letter  by  Mr.  Thomas  Affleck,  published  in  the  American 
Agriculturist  for  November,  1846  (vol  v.,  p.  342) : 

The  pupa  is  black  or  dark  brown  and  shining.  From  the  moment  it  begins  to  spin 
until  it  issues  from  the  pupa  a  perfect  moth  is  from  eight  to  nine  days  of  warm  sea- 
sonable weather,  but  if  unusually  cool  it  extends  to  a  longer  period,  even  to  weeks ; 
hence  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  it  is  in  the  pupa  state  the  insect  is  preserved  over 
winter.  In  fact,  there  is  no  doubt  that  many  are  thus  saved — the  moths  that  are  seen 
occasionally  on  a  warm  winter's  day,  having  been  hatched  prematurely  by  the  unsea- 
sonable warmth  of  the  weather,  and  quickly  perish  from  cold  and  waut  of  food.  Bat 
whether  we  at  all  times  receive  our  supply  from  this  source,  or  whether  (which  I  think 
is  quite  as  probable)  they  are  not  unfrequently  brought  on  a  gale  of  wind  from  the 
West  Indies,  Mexico,  or  the  coast  of  Guiana,  will  be  difficult  to  decide.  My  observa- 
tions lead  me  to  the  conclusion  that  after  a  steady  cold  winter  we  have  the  caterpillar 
early  and  in  abundance ;  and  after  a  mild  or  warm  one  we  have  them,  if  at  all,  but 
partially  and  late  in  the  season.  The  pupa  is  frequently  found  during  winter  safely 
sheltered  under  a  scale  of  bark,  between  two  evergreen  leaves,  under  the  splinter  of 
a  fence-rail,  or  in  a  tuft  of  pine  leaves. 

Early  in  the  following  year  (1847)  Dr.  D.  B.  Gorham,  having  independ- 
ently arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  we  have  an  influx  of  the  cotton -worm 
every  year  from  more  southern  countries,  published  a  paper  on  the  sub- 
ject in  De  Bow's  Review  (vol.  iii,  pp.  535-543).  We  quote  those  parts 
of  the  paper  referring  to  this  theory  : 

Let  us  now  pass  to  the  consideration  of  the  cotton-fly,  premising,  however,  before 
entering  into  an  examination  of  this  destructive  little  moth,  that  my  remarks  are  in- 
tended less  to  enlighten  others  than  to  elicit  information  from  some  one  who  is  better 
able  to  inform.the  public  mind  on  this  interesting  subject.  As  for  myself,  I  must  con- 
fess that  my  limited  observations  do  not  justify  me  in  coming  to  any  positive  conclu- 
sions, and  have  by  no  means  satisfied  my  curiosity ;  but  my  information,  such  as  it  is, 
I  give  in  the  following  pages,  with  the  hope  that  however  imperfect  it  may  prove  in 

109 


110  .        EEPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

the  main,  yet  that  some  mite  of  information  may  be  gleaned  from  it.  It  is  impossible 
to  think  for  a  moment  that  this  species  of  moth  has  escaped  the  observation  of  ento- 
mologists, for  the  plant  upon  which  it  feeds  to  the  absolute  exclusion  of  all  others 
(being  the  great  staple  production  of  many  countries)  must  have  brought  it  into  notice 
at  various  times  and  at  various  places.  From  its  univorous  nature  (to  coin  a  word)  it 
must  have  been  coeval  with  and  inseparable  from  the  existence  of  the  cotton  plant. 
My  principal  motive  for  broaching  this  subject  is  on  account  of  the  frequent  remark 
made  and  fears  entertained  that  the  army- worm  would  become  an  annual  plague.  But 
seine  I  have  investigated  their  nature,  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  these  fears 
are  groundless,  and  that  the  cotton-fly  can  never  become  naturalized  in  our  climate. 

The  first  irruption,  as  I  am  informed  by  an  old  planter,  that  this  insect  made  on 
the  cotton  fields  of  Louisiana  was  about  the  year  1820,  when  its  progress  was  marked 
with  the  same  utter  destruction  of  the  cotton  crop  as  in  the  subsequent  years  of 
their  appearance.  It  then  disappeared  until  1840,  a  period  of  twenty  years.  There  is 
something  singular  and  unaccountable  in  the  periods  of  this  insect,  something  vastly 
different  from  the  periodicities  of  others  which  we  find  with  us,  for  they  appear  to  be 
governed  by  some  fixed  laws ;  the  most  of  them  are  annual,  very  few  biennial.  Now, 
the  grasshopper,  house-fly,  and  mosquito  may  be  looked  for  at  the  return  of  summer 
with  as  much  confidence  and  certainty  as  we  look  for  the  revolutions  of  the  seasons. 
The  Cicada,  septendecem  never  fails  to  make  his  appearance  once  in  seventeen  years. 
But  who  can  tell  whether  the  cotton-fly  will  appear  next  year  or  fifty  years  hence  T 
No  scourge,  whether  under  the  form  of  a  devouring  insect  or  that  of  a  malignant  dis- 
ease, ever  became  annual  in  one  particular  place.  Look  at  the  lociist  of  Egypt ;  sup- 
pose that  voracious  insect  to  become  annual,  the  prolific  valley  of  the  Nile,  once  the 
granary  of  Asia  and  Europe,  would  become  a  howling  desert.  Look  at  the  plague 
that  devastates  sometimes  Smyrna  and  Constantinople ;  did  the  cause  of  that  distem- 
per act  with  the  like  intensity  at  each  return  of  the  season,  those  flourishing  cities 
would  long  since  have  been  numbered  with  Thebes  and  Memphis.  Let  the  cholera 
or  yellow-fever  prevail  in  New  Orleans  every  year  as  it  has  at  times,  and  that  great 
emporium  of  the  Southwest  would  become  a  puny  village.  Is  there  not  an  invisible 
hand  that  sways  the  destinies  of  the  world:  a  hand  that  stays  the  devastations  of 
plague,  pestilence,  and  famine  ?  The  cotton-fly  belongs  to  that  numerous  class  of  in- 
sects known  to  naturalists  under  the  term  of  phalena  or  moth  tribe.  The  following 
are  its  specific  characters,  without  the  technicalities  made  use  of  by  the  naturalist, 
so  far  as  they  could  well  be  avoided.  * 

During  the  present  year,  the  time  that  my  observations  commenced  for  the  first 
time,  the  cotton-fly  again  made  its  appearance  in  the  latter  part  of  August,  at  first 
making  but  little  progress,  but  about  the  middle  of  September  their  numbers  increased 
so  prodigiously  that  in  many  instances  they  would  eat  over  a  field  of  several  hundred 
acres  in  four  or  eight  days.  The  number  of  eggs  deposited  by  the  female  is  uncertain ; 
they  are  smaller  than  a  mustard  seed,  and  always  deposited  on  the  under  surface  of 
the  leaf  during  the  night ;  in  a  few  days  their  eggs  hatch.  The  worm,  at  first  a  mi- 
nute living  point,  falls  immediately  to  work  to  devour  the  leaf.  Its  growth  is  rapid, 
for  its  labors  cease  not  night  or  day  until  it  arrives  at  maturity ;  it  then  winds  itself 
up  into  a  leaf  by  means  of  a  web  resembling  a  cobiceb,  casts  its  skin,  and  changes  into 
a  chrysalis,  in  which  state  it  remains  ten  days,  then  it  bursts  the  thin  walls  of  the 
chrysalis  and  comes  forth  a  perfect  insect.  In  turn,  it  begins  the  work  of  reproduc- 
tion, deposits  its  eggs,'  and  in  ten  more  days  it  dies. 

Thus  in  every  ten  days  there  is  an  additional  generation,  and  they  go  on  increasing 
ad  infmitum.  As  soon  as  the  leaves  were  consumed  in  a  field  this  great  army  took  up 
its  march — some  in  search  of  comfortable  quarters  where  they  might  repose  from 
their  labors,  others  on  a  foraging  expedition  replenish  the  means  of  their  subsist- 
ence. They  first  took  shelter  in  the  first  leaf  they  met  with,  but  generally  they 
proceeded  as  far  as  the  fence,  a  barrier  beyond  which  they  never  traveled,  where  they 
found  a  plentiful  supply  of  leaves  in  which  they  enveloped  themselves.  The  second 


DR.  GORHAM'S  PAPER.  Ill 

division  extended  tlieir  march  much  farther,  sometimes  traveling  half  a  mile  from  the 
point  whence  they  started,  perishing  by  cart-loads  for  the  want  of  food  and  the  many 
casualties  to  which  their  journey  subjected  them,  such  as  carriage- wheels,  heat  of  the 
sun,  and  the  rapacity  of  birds. 

Here,  then,  it  would  appear  was  an  end  of  the  cotton-worm  for  a  season  at  least, 
for  those  which  yet  remain  in  chrysalis  in  the  fence-corners  will  chan  ge  to  the  fly  in 
ten  days.  But  where  are  now  the  cotton  leaves  upon  which  the  pregnant  female  is  to 
deposit  her  eggs  ?  There  is  not  one  left.  If  they  are  placed  on  any  other  leaf  the  eggs 
may  hatch,  but  the  worm  must  perish,  as  we  have  just  seen  them  perishing  by  my- 
riads while  wending  their  way  through  a  various  and  luxuriant  herbage  in  search  of 
that  food  intended  for  them  by  nature.  In  ten  days  from  the  time  that  the  worm  be- 
comes a  chrysalis  on  the  borders  of  the  cotton  fields  a  host  of  flies  are  seen  issuing 
therefrom ;  they  go  forth  in  search  of  food  for  their  forthcoming  progeny.  Now  it 
is  to  be  found  their  days  are  numbered;  in  ten  more,  if  they  meet  with  no  cotton 
leaves,  they  themselves  must  die,  and  thus  put  an  end  to  the  whole  race.  But  their 
search  is  continued,  and  now  when  the  weary  insect  is  ready  to  finish  its  term  of  days, 
a  tender  but  sparse  foliage  crowns  the  leafless  twigs  of  the  cotton  plant;  on  them  the 
eggs  are  deposited ;  they  hatch,  the  worm  eats,  returns  again  to  its  chrysalis.  The 
cotton  stalk  still  puts  forth  new  leaves,  they  grow  and  expand  until  the  fields  again 
look  green ;  ten  days,  aye,  forty,  elapse,  yet  there  is  not  a  worm  to  be  found.  One 
would  have  thought  that  this  second  crop  of  leaves  would  scarcely  have  been  sufficient 
for  a  single  repast  for  them,  yet  the  food  that  they  so  lately  devoured  with  such  vora- 
ciousness is  now  left  untouched.  What  is  the  matter?  Why  don't  they  eat;  their 
food  is  spread  before  them?  Read  on,  the  answer  will  be  found  in  the  sequel.  Let 
us  examine  the  cause.  In  nearly  every  fourth  leaf  we  find  a  chrysalis  writhing  and 
contorting  itself  at  the  touch.  Ah,  here  is  the  explanation  of  the  difficulty,  this  is  no 
ten  days'  chrysalis,  but  that  in  which  it  is  to  hibernate,  possibly  for  one  winter,  per- 
chance for  twenty.  Let  us  take  a  pocketful  of  these  home  and  place  them  beneath 
tumblers,  and  wait  patiently  to  see  what  they  will  produce.  If  I  had  found  a  treas- 
ure my  delight  could  not  have  been  greater  than  that  I  experienced  at  the  idea  of 
unraveling  this  mystery.  But  man  is  prone  to  disappointment,  as  we  shall  soon  see. 
About  the  15th  of  November  the  insect  appeared,  but,  mirabile  dictu,  as  different  from 
the  cotton-fly  as  it  is  possible  to  suppose  one  insect  could  differ  from  another.  It  be- 
longed altogether  to  a  different  family,  a  description  of  which  I  give  as  follows : 

Now,  it  is  evident  from  its  specific  character,  as  well  as  from  its  parasitic  nature, 
this  insect  belongs  to  that  numerous  class  called  ichneumons,  of  which  there  are  up- 
wards of  five  hundred  species.  As  I  am  not  at  present  in  possession  of  any  practical 
work  on  entomology,  I  cannot  determine  the  species  of  this  ichneumon ;  but  to  show 
that  it  difters  in  some  respects  from  the  family  to  which  it  belongs,  I  will  quote  a 
paragraph  from  a  work  before  me,  in  which  are  set  forth  some  peculiarities  belong- 
ing to  that  class  of  insects  as  a  genus : 

"The  whole  of  this  singular  genus  have  been  denominated  parasitical,  on  account 
of  the  very  extraordinary  manner  in  which  they  provide  for  the  future  support  of 
their  young.  The  fly  feeds  on  the  honey  of  flowers,  and,  when  about  to  lay  her  eggs, 
perforates  the  body  of  some  other  insect,  or  its  larvae  with  its  sting  or  instrument  at 
the  end  of  the  abdomen,  and  then  deposits  them.  The  eggs  in  a  few  days  hatch,  and 
the  young  larvae,  which  resemble  minute  white  maggots,  nourish  themselves  with  the 
juices  of  the  foster  parent,  which,  however,  continues  to  move  about  and  feed  until 
near  the  time  of  its  changing  into  a  chrysalis,  when  the  larvos  of  the  ichneumon 
creep  out  by  perforating  the  skin  in  various  places,  and,  each  spinning  itself  up  in  a 
small  oval  silken  case,  changes  into  a  chrysalis,  and  after  a  certain  period  thej 
emerge  in  the  state  of  complete  ichneumons." 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  is  a  peculiarity  attached  to  this  ichneumon  not  include  1 
in  the  above  description :  that  of  appropriating  the  chrysalis  as  well  as  the  larvse  <  f 
other  insects  to  the  use  of  their  young.  All  ichneumons  that  I  ever  read  of  spin 
their  own  chrysalis,  but  this  is  the  prince  of  parasites,  for  not  content  with  eating  the 


112  REPORT   UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 

substance  of  his  neighbor,  he  seizes  also  on  his  house.  So  far  as  I  have  read  concern- 
ing this  curious  family  of  insects,  this  is  a  nondescript.  As  an  example  of  these  in- 
sects called  ichneumons,  I  may  mention  the  Ichneumon  sedttctor,  or  dirt-dauber,  -well 
known  to  everybody  as  that  wasp-like  insect  which  builds  its  clay  houses  on  the  walls, 
and  particularly  in  the  recesses  of  windows,  to  the  great  annoyance  of  the  tidy  house- 
wife. 

Thus  is  answered  the  question  why  the  cotton-fly  did  not  again  eat  up  the  scant 
foliage  which  subsequently  appeared  on  the  stalks.  This  little  usurper  goes  forth  in 
search  of  whom  he  may  devour,  and  as  soon  as  he  finds  a  house  built  and  welJ  pro- 
visioned, he  seizes  upon  it  for  his  posterity,  which  he  does  in  the  following  manner : 
When  he  finds  a  -cotton- worm,  he  pierces  it  with  the  instrument  with  which  its  tail  is 
armed,  and  deposits  an  egg;  the  cotton- worm  soon  spins  itself  up  into  its  case,  there 
to  await  the  period  of  its  perfection,  which  never  arrives,  for  soon  the  egg  of  the 
ichneumon  hatches,  and  falls  to  devouring  his  helpless  companion.  This  work  of  ex- 
termination continues  until  there  is  not  a  vestige  of  the  cotton-fly  left.  I  venture  to 
say,  while  I  am  now  writing  (1st  of  December),  there  is  not  an  egg,  chrysalis,  or  fly 
in  the  confines  of  the  United  States. 

My  speculations  on  the  nature  and  habits  of  the  fly  have  led  me  to  adopt  the  fol- 
lowing hypothesis :  That  it  is  a  native  of  tropical  climates,  and  never  can  pass  a 
single  winter  beyond  them,  consequently  never  can  become  naturalized  in  the  United 
States,  or  anywhere  else  where  the  cotton  plant  is  not  perennial,  for  nature  has  made 
no  provision  by  which  they  can  survive  more  than  ten  or  twelve  days ;  therefore  they 
must  perish  wherever  the  cotton  plant  perishes  during  a  period  of  six  months.  That 
wherever  they  have  prevailed  in  our  cotton-growing  regions,  it  is  when  they  have  be- 
come very  numerous,  and  consumed  all  the  cotton  in  their  native  climes,  and  then  go 
in  search  of  their  food  in  more  northern  climates.  It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  this 
happens  often,  but  the  same  remark  will  hold  in  regard  to  the  cotton-fly  as  it  will  to 
many  other  insects,  that  owing  to  some  unknown  cause  they  become  exceedingly  nu- 
merous, but  at  long  and  irregular  intervals.  The  locust  has  already  been  noticed  as 
an  example,  and  many  more  might  be  cited.  I,  however,  will  mention  another  to  which 
I  was  an  eye-witness.  About  eighteen  years  ago  the  green  or  Wow  fly  became  so  numer- 
ous that  thousands  of  animals  perished  by  them,  also  some  human  beings.  The  least 
spot  of  blood,  the  moisture  of  the  mouth,  eyes,  or  nose,  was  sufficient  to  cause  a  de- 
posit of  eggs.  Sick  persons,  particularly  those  who  had  not  proper  attention,  suffered. 
Several  negro  children  who  came  under  my  notice  fell  a  sacrifice  to  them,  and  it  was  with 
difficulty  that  many  others  were  saved.  In  these  instances  the  fly  deposited  the  eggs 
within  the  nostrils,  where  they  soon  caused  death  by  producing  inflammation  of  the 
brain.  This  fly  is  annual,  and  scarcely  ever  deposits  its  eggs  on  an  animal,  except  it 
be  the  victim  of  a  running  sore,  but  at  the  period  alluded  to  above  it  appeared  that 
there  was  scarcely  animal  flesh  enough  to  feed  the  maggots  of  this  numerous  host. 
It  is  but  once  within  my  recollection  that  I  have  witnessed  this  phenomenon,  and 
neither  before  nor  since  have  I  heard  of  such  ravages  of  the  green  fly.  Why  they 
should  have  existed  in  such  incredible  numbers  at  the  time  referred  to  is  a  question 
not  to  be  easily  answered 

There  are  three  circumstances  upon  which  I  found  my  arguments  in  support  of  my 
hypothesis  of  the  cotton-fly :  First.  Nature  has  made  no  provision  by  which  it  could 
survive  the  winter  season.  Second.  The  irregularity  of  their  appearance.  Third. 
Their  progress  from  south  to  north  and  from  west  to  east. 

It  may  be  remarked  on  proposition  first,  that  all  insects  included  within  the  genus 
phalena  hibernate  in  the  state  of  a  chrysalis,  therefore  it  is  utterly  impossible  for 
the  cotton-fly  to  hibernate  in  that  manner,  as  they  remain  but  ten  days  in  chrysalis. 
The  fly  does  not  hibernate,  for  the  period  of  their  existence  is  but  ten  or  twelve  days. 
It  cannot  be  in  the  state  of  the  egg,  for  it  is  a  law  equally  inflexible  with  regard  to 
this  tribe,  that  the  egg  must  be  deposited  on  the  leaf  on  which  the  larvae  are  to  feed, 
and  the  reason  is  very  plain,  for  these  larvae,  when  first  hatched,  are  minute  living 


DR.  BURNETT'S  PAPER.  113 

points  of  an  exceedingly  helpless  nature,  almost  devoid  of  locomotion,  or  possessing  it 
in  too  small  a  degree  to  enable  it  to  go  in  search  of  food.  Bat  let  us  suppose  that  the 
egg  does  not  survive  the  winter ;  how  does  it  happen  that  when  the  worm  first  makes 
its  appearance  it  is  found  on  the  very  summits  of  the  cotton  instead  of  the  lower 
branch  ?  parts  that  it  would  reach  the  soonest  if  it  proceeded  from  the  ground  upwards. 

The  phalena  mori,  or  silkworm,  is  an  insect  of  the  same  genus  as  the  cotton-fly,  and 
whose  habitudes  are  very  much  the  same  as  the  latter,  tropical  in  its  nature,  confining 
itself  to  a  particular  vegetable,  the  different  species  of  mulberry,  and  being  short-lived 
iu  the  chrysalis,  remaining  in  this  state  but  fifteen  days.  At  the  approach  of  winter, 
when  the  mulberry  trees  cast  their  leaves  and  remain  leafless  for  many  months,  these 
insects,  in  our  climate,  would  all  perish,  were  they  left  to  themselves.  But  art  in  this 
respect  has  triumphed  over  nature,  for  the  silk-grower  at  a  certain  season  gathers  a 
parcel  of  eggs  and  places  them  in  a  cold  dark  place  until  the  mulberry  tree  shall  again 
afford  them  food  iu  the  spring,  and  in  this  manner  they  are  perpetuated,  and  this  is 
the  only  possible  way  that  they  could  be  preserved  here ;  they  are  like  some  tender 
exotic,  which  flourishes  as  long  as  the  warmth  of  the  hot-house  affords  it  a  congenial 
atmosphere,  but  perishes  if  left  to  buffet  the  rigors  of  winter. 

Proposition  second  :  Here  I  contend  that  when  an  insect  is  a  native  of  or  naturalized 
in  any  country  they  are  always  governed  by  some  invariable  laws  which  determine 
their  appearance.  The  grasshopper  is  annual,  coming  every  spring  or  summer  ;  the 
locust  of  our  climate  septem-decennial,  appearing  once  in  seventeen  years;  but  the 
cotton-fly  nas  no  regular  periods  of  return,  showing  that  when  it  reaches  our  climate 
it  is  by  some  casualty. 

In  proposition  third,  I  maintain  that  if  the  cotton-fly  sojourned  here  during  the 
winter  or  winters,  when  it  did  appear  at  all  it  would  do  so  simultaneously  through 
the  whole  cotton  district,  instead  of  which  we  see  it  progressing  regularly  from  south 
to  north  and  from  west  to  east. 

Such  are  the  speculations  that  I  have  entertained  concerning  the  cotton-worm,  from 
which  I  conclude  that  it  originates  in  South  America,  and  reaches  us  through  Mexico, 
and  never  can  become  a  denizen  of  our  soil. 

Dr.  Gorhaui's  article  excited  considerable  interest.  It  was  republished 
in  several  prominent  Southern  journals,  and  elicited  a  number  of  an- 
swers. We  have  been  able  to  find  no  evidence,  however,  that  the  theory 
was  accepted  at  that  time  by  any  writer  on  the  subject. 

Seven  years  later  (March  17,  1853)  a  communication  from  Dr.  W.  I. 
Burnett,  entitled  "  The  Cotton-worm  of  the  Southern  States,"  was  read 
before  the  Boston  Society  of  Natural  History.*  In  this  communication 
the  theory  of  migrations  was  again  proposed.  In  this  instance  the  the- 
orist evidently  based  his  conclusions  on  a  small  amount  of  evidence,  as 
is  shown  by  the  first  paragraph  of  the  following  quotation,  and  the  state- 
ment in  the  third  paragraph  that  he  had  seen  the  insect  only  in  the 
larva  state.  We  quote  Dr.  Burnett's  paper  entire : 

During  the  past  winter  I  have  been  collecting  materials  for  the  history  of  that  most 
devastating  of  American  insects,  the  cotton-worm.  In  this  I  have  been  aided  and 
favored  by  several  intelligent  Southern  planters,  whose  severe  losses  from  the  ravages 
of  this  animal  have  made  them  keenly  ah' ve  to  many  of  its  habits  and  modes  of  life. 
Of  these  gentlemen,  I  am  particularly  indebted  to  Mr.  Robert  Chisolm,  of  Palmetto 
Hall,  Beaufort,  S.  C.,  an  intelligent  and  extensive  cotton  planter,  who  has  with  much 
care  watched  the  economy  of  this  insect  during  several  of  its  later  appearances.  He 
has  sent  me  several  communications,  from  which,  together  with  an  examination  of  the 

'Published  in  1854,  Proc.  Boston  Soc.  Nat,  Hist,,  iv,  p.  316. 

8  ci 


114  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

larval  specimens  with  which  they  were  accompanied,  I  have  heen  able  to  prepare  the 
following  account : 

This  insect  appears  to  be  but  little  known  in  science,  although  the  injury  to  property 
•which  it  causes  is  perhaps  greater  and  more  deplorable  than  that  occasioned  by  any 
other  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  On  the  years  of  its  appearance,  the  entire  cotton 
crop  of  certain  districts  is  often  cut  short,  and  in  not  a  few  instances  single  plantations 
have  suifered  to  the  amount  of  from  ten  to  fifteen  thousand  dollars. 

It  is  one  of  the  span-worms  or  Geometridae,  belonging  to  the  same  family  of  insects 
as  the  canker-worm,  which  is  so  much  feared  by  horticulturists  of  the  North. 

I  have  as  yet  only  seen  the  larva.  It  is  not  indigenous  to  the  Southern  States,  and 
there  is  no  evidence  that  it  can  live  naturally  north  of  the  shores  of  Texas.  Most 
probably  it  is  a  native  of  Brazil  or  some  other  equatorial  climate  in  that  vicinity,  for 
it  is  so  sensitive  to  the  cold  as  to  quickly  die  in  an  atmosphere,  even  approaching  the 
freezing  point.  It  appears,  then,  on  the  Southern  cotton  fields  always  as  in  migration, 
coming  suddenly  like  a  foreign  enemy  and  always  selecting  the  most  thrifty  planta- 
tions. It  is  very  remarkable,  therefore,  that  it  should  appear  regularly  at  intervals  of 
every  three  years  in  the  same  districts,  striking  first  the  seaboard  and  progressing 
gradually  inland  as  circumstances  may  favor.  But  equally  remarkable  in  this  connec- 
tion is  the  fact  that  its  most  extensive  and  deplorable  ravages  occur  always  after  inter- 
vals of  twenty-one  years,  or  every  seventh  time  of  its  advent,  as  shown  in  the  years 
1804, 1825,  and  1846  during  the  last  half  century.  These  facts  are  inexplicable,  unless 
referable  to  some  peculiar  conditions  of  their  economy  in  their  native  land.  Little  is 
known  from  what  southern  direction  they  come,  for,  like  all  insects  of  this  family 
their  movements  are  made  at  night,  and  the  seaboard  planter  often  rises  in  the  morn- 
ing to  find  whole  sections  of  his  plantations  covered  w  ith  the  adult  insects  busily  en- 
gaged in  depositing  their  eggs  on  the  tender  leaves  of  the  cotton.  There  is,  however, 
no  regularity  in  the  exact  month- of  their  coming,  for  Mr.  Chisolm  says  that  on  his 
plantations  they  came  in  1840  quite  early,  but  in  1843  much  later,  and  remained  until 
frost ;  in  1846,  in  June,  and  in  1849  and  1852  in  August. 

The  cotton-caterpillar  is  nearly  always  accompanied  directly  by  another  insect, 
called  the  boll-worm  (probably  one  of  the  Noctuidae),  which  confines  its  attacks  to  the 
immature  lint  and  seeds  of  the  green  pods  of  the  short-stapled  variety  of  cotton  ;  and, 
as  short  cotton  is  mostly  cultivated  in  sections  farther  south  than  those  of  the  long- 
stapled  variety,  this  boll-worm  is  generally  seen  in  Texas  and  Mississippi  six  weeks 
or  so  before  the  cotton-caterpillar  proper  appears  on  the  coast  of  Georgia  and  South 
Carolina.  Little  is  known  of  its  habits  more  than  this ;  for  its  ravages  are  compara- 
tively so  inconsiderable  that  it  attracts  scarcely  any  attention  of  the  planter.  Its 
concomitancy  with  the  true  cotton-worm,  however,  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  and 
there  is  no  doubt  that  it  belongs  to  a  different  family  of  insects. 

The  cotton-insect  having  made  its  appearance,  shows  considerable  sagacity  in  always 
seeking  first  the  most  luxuriant  fields.  The  eggs,  which  are  of  a  dull  white  color,  are 
deposited  singly,  or  at  most  in  twos,  on  the  under  surface  of  the  most  tender  leaves. 
Their  period  of  incubation  is  quite  short,  being  six  or  seven  days,  and  the  time  of 
hatching  is  always  after  sunset  or  in  the  night.  They  then  begin  to  feed  ravenously, 
and  grow  in  proportion,  their  attacks  being  always  confined  to  the  long-stapled  vari- 
ety when  accessible,  though,  when  hard  pnshed,  they  will  eat  the  short  variety ;  but 
never  anything  else ;  and  if  their  numbers  are  disproportionate  in  excess  to  the  cot- 
ton at  hand,  they  will  die  of  starvation  rather  than  touch  any  other  vegetable. 

During  their  caterpillar  state  they  are  almost  wholly  unaffected  by  all  changes  in 
the  weather,  excepting  cold;  for  the  heaviest  rains  and  the  severest  gales  of  wind  do 
not  stay  their  movements  or  prevent  in  the  least  their  devastations.  Mr.  Chisolm 
says  that  a  very  violent  hurricane  of  two  or  three  hours'  duration,  which  swept  over 
his  plantations  in  August  last,  made  no  impression  whatever  on  their  progress.  If, 
however,  there  occurs  even  a  slight  frost  they  are  killed  throughout.  These  circum- 
stances are  worthy  of  mention,  as  bearing  upon  their  probable  tropical  origin.  Their 


115 

larval  state  is  of  about  ten  days'  duration,  and,  during  this  time,  they  moult  two  or 
three  times,  changing  their  colors  and  general  appearance  in  the  same  singular  man- 
ner as  the  canker-worm  of  the  North.  The  caterpillar,  when  full-grown  and  well  fed, 
ia  sixteen  legged,  of  the  size  of  a  common  crow-quill,  and  from  an  inch  and  a  quarter 
to  au  inch  and  a  half  in  length.  It  has  a  reddish  head,  is  whitish  below,  and  brown- 
ish blaek  above ;  on  each  side  are  two  longitudinal,  wavy  white  lines,  and  another 
straight  on  the  middle  of  the  back.  When,  ready  to  wind  up  they  swing  down  from 
the  cotton  plant,  and,  without  any  choice,  take  up  indifferently  with  the  nearest  ob- 
jects, on  which  they  may  rest  during  this  process.  Their  chrysalid  state  continues 
about  twelve  days ;  the  moths  then  appear  and  immediately  go  about  depositing  their 
eggs,  after  which  they  die.  This  perfect  state  lasts  only  four  or  five  days.  Such  is 
the  routine  of  their  reproduction.  When  they  appear  early  in  the  season,  there  are 
usually  three  broods ;  but  some  years  they  come  so  late  that  only  a  single  new  gener- 
ation is  seen.  In  either  case  the  last  brood  almost  invariably  perishes  throughout, 
being  either  killed  instantly  by  the  frost  or  dying  from  starvation,  having  eaten  all 
the  cotton  before  their  transformations  take  place.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  these 
ravaging  insects  as  they  appear  in  the  cotton  fields  of  the  South  do  so  at  the  loss  of 
that  portion  of  their  race,  for  they  leave  no  progeny  behind  them.  At  the  same  time 
this  condition  of  things  makes  the  matter  the  more  deplorable  for  the  planter,  for,  as 
he  has  to  contend  with  a  suddenly  invading  foe  from  foreign  parts,  he  is  rendered 
wholly  powerless  in  averting  this  regularly  periodical  destruction  of  property. 

Dr.  Burnett's  statement  of  the  theory,  being  published  in  a  purely  sci- 
entific journal  of  limited  circulation  in  the  South,  seems  to  have  failed 
to  attract  much  attention,  as  we  have  been  unable  to  find  it  mentioned 
in  any  of  the  agricultural  journals  of  that  time.  Neither  do  we  find  any 
reference  to  a  theory  of  migrations  until  nearly  twenty  years  later,  when 
Mr.  A.  E.  Grote,  in  an  article  in  the  Eural  Carolinian  for  November, 
1871,  incidentally  made  the  following  statement : 

The  question  with  us  has  been,  where  does  the  first  brood  come  from  t  The  Novem- 
ber chrysalises  all  became  moths  during  warmer  days,  or  were  finally  destroyed  by 
frost  or  the  process  of  cultivation.  On  sunny  winter  days  a  few  of  the  hibernating 
moths  were  seen  about  fodder  stalks.  Bnt  before  the  young  cotton  was  large  enough 
to  furnish  food  in  the  next  spring,  our  cotton-worm  had  entirely  disappeared,  nor  could 
we  find  it  in  any  stage.  We  always  hear  of  it  southwardly  from  us.  We  know  that 
the  southerly  winds  bring  the  moth.  Indeed,  Professor  Packard  writes  us  that  ho  has 
found  the  moth  as  far  north  as  the  coast  of  Massachusetts.  Out  of  sight  of  land  off 
Charleston  we  ourselves  have  seen  numbers  of  cut-worm  moths  flying  about  the  ship, 
blown  from  the  shore. 

It  was  not,  however,  until  August,  1874,  at  the  Hartford  meeting  of 
the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  that  Mr. 
Grote  put  forth  the  theory  in  a  definite  form.  Mr.  Grote's  conclusions 
were  based  upon  observations  made  during  a  residence  of  several  years 
in  Central  Alabama,  and  were  published,  like  those  of  his  predecessors, 
without  any  knowledge  of  earlier  writings  on  the  subject.  We  see  here 
the  strange  phenomenon  of  a  scientific  theory  being  independently  de- 
veloped and  proposed  four  times  in  a  little  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury. 

We  will  quote  only  that  part  of  Mr.  Grote's  paper  which  refers  to  this 
theory : 

It  is  the  object  of  the  present  paper  to  throw,  happily,  some  light  on  the  biography 
of  the  cotton-worm  as  it  occurs  in  the  Southern  States,  and  in  so  doing  I  think  it  will 


116  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

"become  apparent  that  Prof.  C.  V.  Riley  lias  regarded  the  same  subject  from  an  erro- 
neous stand-point,  having  considered  the  cotton-worm  as  belonging  to  our  fauna,  and 
accordingly  misunderstood  its  economy  as  displayed  with  us  and  far  from  its  natural 
abode.  And  here,  while  I  am  obliged  to  differ  on  a  scientific  question  with  Professor 
Riley,  I  bear  willing  testimony  to  the  great  good  achieved  by  the  publication  of  the 
Missouri  Reports. 

The  Aletia  argillacea,  or  cotton-worm,  is  an  insect  belonging  to  the  Noctuse,  a  group 
of  nocturnal  moths.  It  is  one  of  a  number  of  intertropical  or  Southern  forms,  some- 
what nearly  allied  to  our  more  thickly-scaled  and  Northern  genus  Plusia.  The  cater- 
pillar is  a  "  half-looper,"  to  use  a  common  term,  and  the  chrysalis  is  held  within  an 
exceedingly  loose  web  on  the  plant,  the  few  threads  usually  binding  over  the  edge  of 
the  leaf,  and  of  themselves  furnishing  no  adequate  protection  to  the  pupa.  (I  here 
exhibit  to  the  association  specimens  of  the  larva,  pupa,  and  moth  of  Aletia.)  Techni- 
cal descriptions  of  the  different  stages  are  already  extant,  and  so  may  be  passed  over 
here.  The  more  immediate  question  for  our  solution  is  the  consecutive  history  of  the 
insect,  so  that  we  may  be  prepared  to  offer  suggestions  to  the  agriculturists  for  its- 
destruction. 

The  region  over  which,  during  five  seasons,  I  have  observed  the  cotton-worm,  em- 
braces the  central  portion  of  the  cotton  belt  in  the  States  of  Georgia  and  Alabama, 
and  in  particular  the  counties  of  Marengo  and  Greene,  lying  along  the  Tombigbee  and 
Black  Warrior  Rivers.  There  cotton  is  planted  in  March  and  April,  blooms  in  June 
and  July,  and  perishes  in  November  or  with  the  frost.  The  earliest  period  at  which 
I  have  noticed  the  young  worm  was  the  last  week  in  June,  and  its  usual  appearance 
was  in  July,  sometimes  as  late  as  the  latter  part  of  the  mouth.  Its  date  of  appear- 
ance was  irregular,  and. never  accurately  coincided  in  any  two  seasons.  Sometimes 
it  seemed  as  though  we  were  "  not  going  to  have  any  worm  at  all  this  year,"  a  remark 
suggested  by  hope  and  the  tardiness  of  its  advent.  My  observations  have  been  mainly 
directed  to  the  question  of  the  origination  of  the  first  brood,  and  have  led  me  to  re- 
cord the  following  results :  I  have  observed  that  the  appearance  of  the  worm  in  the 
fields  was  always  heralded  by  nights  of  the  moth,  which  came  to  light  in  houses  at  least 
a  week  before  the  worm  was  noticed  on  the  plants.  I  have  obserA'ed  that  the  distri- 
bution of  the  first  brood  was  irregular,  the  worms  occurring  hero  and  there  over  miles 
of  country,  while  infesting  some  plantations,  skipping  unaccountably  others,  which 
the  second  brood,  however,  seldom  failed  to  reach.  I  have  noticed  that  the  worm  was 
always  heard  of  to  the  southward  at  first,  and  never  to  the  northward,  of  any  given 
locality  in  the  cotton  belt.  Finally,  after  diligent  search,  no  traces  of  the  insect  in 
any  stage  could  be  found  by  me  during  the  months  preceding  the  appearance  of  the 
first  brood  heralded  by  the  moth,  and  after  the  cotton  was  above  the  ground.  The 
broods  themselves  were  consecutive  and  without  interruption  so  long  as  the  condi- 
tions were  favorable.  The  last  brood,  in  years  where  the  worm  was  numerous,  eat 
up  every  portion  of  the  plant  that  was  at  all  soft,  flowers,  the  persistent  calyx, 
the  very  young  ball,  the  terminal  shoots.  The  last  brood  of  worms  changed  into 
chrysalides  in  myriads  on  the  leafless  stems,  clinging  by  their  few  threads  as  best  they 
might,  and  disclosed  the  moth  in  the  face  of  the  frost,  many  of  the  chrysalides  per- 
ishing. Afterwards,  on  sunny  winter  days,  I  have  noticed  the  live  moth  about  gin- 
houses  and  fodder  stacks,  or  the  negro  quarters.  Was  this  a  true  "hibernation,"  or 
merely  an  accidental  survival  f  The  locality  and  the  condition  seem  to  me  alike  arti- 
ficial. 

Now,  HUbner  describes  the  moth  of  the  cotton-worm  at  first  as  from  Bahia.  Suffi- 
cient testimony  to  the  identity  of  our  insect  with  one  destructive  to  the  West  Indian, 
Mexican,  and  Brazilian  perennial  cotton  is  at  hand,  and  the  fact  is  established.  In  a 
classificatory  point  of  view  the  affinities  of  the  cotton-worm  are  with  Southern  rather 
than  Northern  forms  of  its  family,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out.  The  conclusion  to 
which  I  have  come  with  regard  to  the  cotton-worm  is  that  it  dies  out  every  year  (with  its 
food  plant),  that  it  occurs  in  the  cotton  belt  of  the  Southern  States,  and  that  its  next  appear- 
ance is  the  result  of  immigration.  Testimony  is  at  hand  to  show  that  for  many  years 


MR.  GROTE'S  PAPER.  117 

after  the  cultivation  of  the  cotton  plant  was  introduced  into  the  Southern  States,  the 
cotton- worm  never  appeared.  The  date  at  which  it  first  appeared  in  central  Alabama 
has  been  differently  stated  to  me,  but  it  evidently  but  little  preceded  the  late  war. 
That  the  moth  is  capable  of  sustaining  long  and  extended  flight  is  readily  proven. 
Professor  Packard  observed  the  moth  off  the  coast  of  the  Eastern  States,  as  also  Mr. 
Burgess.  I  have  observed  the  moth  in  October  in  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  as  also  Dr.  Harvey. 
According  to  Mr.  Riley  the  moth  has  been  observed  in  Chicago,  I  presume  in  the  fall. 
It  seems  that  the  moth  follows  the  coast-line  northward,  as  also  the  water-courses 
that  empty  into  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  It  is  noteworthy  here  that  the  water-shed  of  the 
Ohio  and  Mississippi  extends  to  within  fifty  miles  of  Buffalo.  As  an  example  of  the 
prolonged  flight  of  moths,  I  will  state  that  I  have  observed  in  the  Gulf  Stream,  off 
the  Carolinas,  and  out  of  sight  of  land,  in  the  month  of  August,  large  numbers  of  a 
moth,  the  Agrotis  annexa  of  Treitschke. 

Again,  I  have  been  struck  by  the  absence  of  parasitic  checks  to  the  cotton-worm 
in  the  South.  I  could  never  discover  any,  although  such  may  exist.  Spreading,  as  I 
"believe  it  to  do,  as  a  moth,  the  absence  of  peculiar  parasites  to  the  worm  may  be 
reasonably  accounted  for.  I  have  already  and  elsewhere  pointed  out,  that  in  order  to 
make  the  first  brood  of  the  cotton- worm  the  progeny  of  the  so-called  "hibernating" 
individuals  (as  Professor  Riley  would  suppose),  a  period  of  several  months  had  to  be  ac- 
counted for,  since  these  "hibernating"  moths  could  not  wait  till  midsummer  to  de- 
posit their  eggs ;  and  while  the  cotton  is  young,  and  even  before  it  is  up,  iusect  life 
is  active,  and  the  weather  is  warm  and  other  vegetation  fully  out  in  the  region  of 
the  South  where  I  have  lived.  There  is  also  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  cotton- 
worm  ever  breeds  in  the  North,  and  this,  notwithstanding  Professor  Riley's  sugges- 
tions to  the  contrary  in  the  sixth  report  before  mentioned.  The  worm  uever  has  been 
noticed  on  any  other  plant  than  the  cotton,  and  in  the  South  perishes  by-  thousands 
rather  than  eat  any  other.  The  habit  of  wandering  in  masses  when  food  fails  is  a 
proof  of  this,  as  while  the  worm  is  supplied  with  cotton-leaf  it  never  quits  the  plant, 
transforming  to  the  chrysalis  on  the  stalk  which  has  furnished  it  nutriment.  The 
wandering  habit  is  not  normal,  but  accidental,  and  the  worm  is  not  "gregarious" 
like  the  "  tent  caterpillar."  Its  "  hibernation"  with  us  must  also  be  regarded  as  acci- 
dental, or  at  least  as  barren  of  results.  For  when  springs  comes  the  Aletia  argillacea 
has  vanished,  and  is  not  found  with  the  hibernating  species  of  Lepidoptera  renewedly 
active.  And  if  it  were  found  in  February  and  March,  it  would  find  no  cotton  plants 
upon  which  to  deposit  its  eggs.  If  oviposition  ever  takes  place  in  these  months  in 
the  cotton  belt,  the  young  cotton,  free  from  worms,  disproves  its  efficacy. 

It  is  possible  that  in  the  southern  portions  of  Texas,  or  the  Floridian  peninsula,  the 
Aletia  may  sustain  itself  during  the  entire  year  ;  I  have  no  means  of  information  on 
this  point.  My  observations  are  made  on  its  occurrence  over  the  central  and  principal 
portions  of  the  cotton  belt,  and  into  which  I  believe  it  to  be  imported  de  novo  every 
season  that  it  there  occurs  and  from  more  southern  regions.  I  conclude,  therefore, 
that  while  the  cotton  plant  is  not  indigenousfto  the  Southern  States  (where  it  becomes 
an  annual),  the  cotton-worm  moth  may  be  considered  not  a  denizen,  but  a  visitant, 
brought  by  various  causes  to  breed  in  a  strange  region,  and  that  it  naturally  dies  out 
with  us  in  the  cotton  belt,  unable  to  suit  itself  as  yet  to  the  altered  economy  of  its  food- 
plant  and  to  contend  with  the  changes  of  our  seasons.  When  this  fact  is  comprehended 
it  will  simplify  the  process  of  artificial  extermination  by  limiting  the  period  during 
which  we  can  successfully  attack  the  cotton-worm,  and  by  doing  away  with  a  certain 
class  of  proposed  remedies.  From  the  foregoing  it  will  be  evident  that,  1,  the  arti- 
ficial agent  employed  to  destroy  the  cotton-worm  must  be  employed  against  the  first 
brood  as  it  appears  in  any  given  locality  during  the  progression  of  the  moth  north- 
ward ;  and,  2,  that  in  order  to  be  effectual,  a  concerted  action  in  the  application  of 
the  remedial  agent  in  any  given  locality  will  be  found  necessary. 

Before  entering  upon  any  discussion  of  the  theory  of  migration  let  us 
•examine  the  data  upon  which  the  theorists  have  based  their  conclusions. 


118  REPORT    UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 

Respecting  Mr.  Affleck's  statements,  there  is  but  little  to  be  said  except 
in  praise  of  the  accuracy  of  his  observations.  Had  there  been  in  the 
South  many  observers  of  insects  as  careful  as  he  was,  the  mooted  points 
respecting  the  life  history  of  the  cotton-worin  would  have  been  cleared 
up  long  ago.  His  observations  are  of  peculiar  interest  to  us,  when  we 
remember  that  he  was  not  a  professional  naturalist,  but  simply  a  very 
industrious  and  observing  planter,  who  did  all  he  could  to  advance  the 
best  methods  of  agriculture. 

Mr.  Affleck  observed  that  while  this  insect  remained  only  eight  or 
nine  days  in  the  pupa  state  during  the  summer,  as  the  season  ad 
vanced  it  underwent  its  transformations  much  more  slowly,  and  lie 
very  naturally  concluded  that  the  species  hibernated  as  a  pupa.  But 
after  trying  experiments  upon  pupae,  and  observing  the  moths  flying 
during  the  winter,  he  changed  his  views,  and  published  in  his  almanac 
for  1851  his  belief  that  the  species  hibernated  as  a  moth.  Although  Mr. 
Affleck  does  not  state  distinctly  the  reasons  for  his  belief  that  the  moths 
"are  not  unfrequently  brought  on  a  gale  of  wind  from  the  West  Indies, 
Mexico,  or  the  coast  of  Guiana,"  a  careful  study  of  his  paper  leads  us  to- 
infer  that  he  believed  that  during  warm  winters  the  moths  emerged 
prematurely  and  were  all  destroyed  by  the  cold ;  and  that  following  such 
winters  the  worms  were  unusually  late  in  making  their  appearance,  their 
presence  being  dependent  upon  an  influx  of  moths  from  regions  farther 
south.  It  is  an  interesting  fact,  in  this  connection,  that  many  planters 
have  a  theory  just  the  opposite  of  this.  They  believe  that  as  the  insect 
was  originally  a  tropical  one  it  is  unable  to  endure  unusually  severe 
winters;  and  they  state  that  the  seasons  following  such  winters  are  not 
likely  to  be  marked  by  extensive  ravages  of  this  pest. 

In  Dr.  Gorham's  article  we  find  abundant  meterial,  if  it  were  reliable, 
for  the  complete  establishment  of  the  theory  of  migrations.  First,  as  to 
the  "  periods  of  this  insect."  Although  there  are  many  instances  of  a 
locality  escaping  severe  ravages  of  this  pest  for  many  years,  still  we  find 
published  accounts  of  its  appearance  in  destructive  numbers  in  some 
portion  of  the  cotton  belt  every  year  since  1825,  and  of  numerous  in- 
stances prior  to  that  date,  though  from  insufficiency  of  records  we  can- 
not state  positively  that  it  occurred  every  year  from  the  time  of  its  first 
appearance  in  our  country.  Hence,  even  if  it  did  entirely  disappear  from 
some  portions  of  the  cotton  belt,  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  those 
sections  have  been  restocked  by  immigrations  from  foreign  countries,  at 
least  since  1825.  The  principal  argument,  however,  upon  which  Dr. 
Gorham  based  his  theory,  was  the  supposition  that  A.  argillacea  never 
remains  more  than  ten  days  in  either  pupa  or  adult  state,  and  conse- 
quently could  not  survive  the  winter  season.  We  have  shown  in  Chap- 
ter III,  that  the  length  of  time  required  for  this  insect  to  complete  its 
transformations  varies  greatly;  that  it  may  remain  a  mouth  in  the  pupa 
state;  and  that  it  is  known  to  remain  several  months  in  the  adult  state. 
Dr.  Gorham's  illusions  respecting  those  points  furnish  good  evidence 


DISCUSSION    OF    MIGRATIONS.  11£ 

that  lie  had  not  read  Mr.  Affleck's  statement  of  the  theory.  Dr.  Gor- 
ham  had  still  another  reason  for  his  conclusions  which  was  in  itself 
sufficient  to  prove  the  theory.  He  collected  pupa3  late  in  the  seasony 
and  finding  that  all  of  them  were  parasitized  he  concluded  that  the 
entire  fall  brood  had  been  destroyed  by  parasites.  From  the  descrip- 
tion which  Dr.  Gorham  published  of  the  parasite,  it  is  evident  that  it 
was  Pimpla  conquisitor.  His  account  of  its  operations  is  very  interest- 
ing, being,  we  believe,  the  first  published  notice  of  any  parasite  infest- 
ing the  cotton- worm.  And  the  fact  that  this  Ichneumon  infests  the  last 
brood  of  A.  argillacea  to  a  very  great  extent  has  been  confirmed  by 
the  experience  of  the  past  year.  Still  many  pupa3  of  this  brood  do  es- 
cape; and  we  therefore  infer  that  Dr.  Gorham  made  his  collections 
late  in  the  season  after  the  unparasitized  individuals  had  emerged 
from  the  pupa  state,  and  before  the  parasites  themselves  had  completed 
their  development. 

The  data  upon  which  Dr.  Burnett  founded  his  theory  were  very  in- 
sufficient. It  is  surprising  that  a  man  of  his  scientific  attainments 
should  have  proposed  a  theory  simply  upon  the  statements  of  an  un- 
trained observer.  For  there  is  no  evidence  that  Dr.  Burnett  ever  studied 
the  subject  in  the  field ;  although,  as  we  learn  from  the  notice  of  his  life, 
written  by  the  late  Professor  Wyman,*  he  passed  several  winters  in  the 
South.  Each  of  the  three  reasons  which  Dr.  Burnett  brings  forward  as 
proof  of  the  truth  of  his  theory  has  already  been  shown  to  be  a  mistaken 
idea.  The  insect,  in  the  adult  state  at  least,  is  not  "  so  sensitive  to  the 
cold  as  to  quickly  die  iu  an  atmosphere  even  approaching  the  freezing- 
point."  It  does  not  appear  only  "at  intervals  of  every  three  years." 
Neither  does  the  pest  appear  first  upon  the  seaboard  and  progress 
gradually  inland. 

In  the  case  of  Mr.  Grote  we  find  the  first  instance  among  those  who 
have  proposed  the  theory  of  migrations,  of  a  writer  who  is  both  a  trained 
entomologist  of  high  standing,  and  one  who  based  his  conclusions  on 
extended  personal  observations  in  the  field.  It  is  also  worthy  of  note 
that  Mr.  Grote's  researches  were  made  in  one  of  the  localities  which  has 
suffered  most  from  the  ravages  of  the  cotton- worm,  and  one  in  which, 
as  we  have  already  indicated,  we  believe  the  species  to  hibernate.  For 
these  reasons  Mr.  Grote's  essay  in  particular  should  be  carefully  studied 
by  one  treating  of  the  theory  of  migrations.  Such  study  taken  in  con- 
nection with  what  is  now  known  respecting  the  first  appearance  of  the 
worms  in  the  spring  will,  we  believe,  reveal  the  fact  that  Mr.  Grote's 
observations  were  not  made,  as  he  supposed,  upon  the  first  brood,  but 
upon  the  brood  to  which  we  have  referred  as  the  first  crop,  i.  e.  the 
second  brood,  or  in  some  cases  the  third  brood.  The  statement  that 
"the  earliest  period  at  which  I  have  noticed  the  young  worm  was  the 
last  week  in  June,  and  its  usual  appearance  was  in  July,  sometimes  as 
late  as  the  latter  part  of  the  mouth"  is  sufficient  to  prove  this.  For  we 


'  Proc.  Bost,  Soc.  Nat.  Hist.  V.  65. 


120  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

have  shown  in  the  chapter  on  Natural  History  that  the  first  brood  is 
developed  in  May,  as  soon  as  the  cotton  plants  furnish  sufficient  food. 
And  there  is  no  doubt  in  our  opinion  that  the  inoths,  which  Mr.  Grote 
observed  to  be  attracted  to  light  in  houses  in  June  or  July  and  which 
he  supposed  "  heralded "  the  appearance  of  the  first  brood  of  worms, 
had  been  developed  the  same  season  in  neighboring  cotton  fields.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  all  efforts  to  obtain  inoths  in  the  early  part  of 
the  past  season  failed,  though  the  presence  of  full-grown  worms  on 
cotton  in  the  latter  part  of  May  indicated  that  moths  had  visited  the 
fields  several  weeks  earlier.  It  is  not  strange  that  Mr.  Grote  failed  to 
observe  the  larvae  of  the  first  brood  ;  for,  doubtless,  he  was  led  by  the 
universal  testimony  of  the  planters  to  expect  them  at  a  much  later  sea- 
son than  that  at  which  they  occur.  Moreover,  it  is  not  an  easy  task  to 
find  the  larvae  in  May,  even  when  a  person  is  looking  for  them,  they 
occur  in  such  small  numbers.  Mr.  Grote  is  also  mistaken  in  supposing 
that  worms  are  always  reported  southward  of  any  given  locality  before 
they  are  found  north  of  it ;  as  a  study  of  the  past  history  shows,  it  has 
not  been  an  uncommon  thing  for  cotton- worms  to  be  reported  in  Central 
Alabama  earlier  than  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State.  As  to  the  sup- 
posed absence  of  parasitic  checks  we  will  simply  refer  to  our  remarks 
on  Dr.  Gorham's  paper,  and  to  the  chapter  on  Natural  Enemies,  where 
the  subject  is  discussed  at  length. 

It  seems  to  us  that  when  we  have  weighed  carefully  the  data  upon 
which  the  theorists  have  based  their  conclusions,  there  remains  but  lit- 
tle reason  for  a  discussion  of  the  theory.  All  the  supposed  facts  which 
have  been  brought  forward  to  support  it,  with  a  single  exception,  have 
proven  to  be  mistaken  ideas.  The  moths  are  evidently  capable  of  mak- 
ing long  flights,  as  is  shown  by  their  occurrence  in  the  autumn  several 
hundred  miles  north  of  the  latitude  in  which  they  can  survive  the  winter. 
But  this  alone  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  the  theory.  It  simply  shows 
that  did  the  moths  occur  in  large  numbers  within  an  equal  distance  south 
of  our  territory  we  would  be  liable  to  suffer  from  incursions  of  the  pest 
from  those  regions.  But  it  remains  to  be  proven  that  the  presence  of 
moths  in  our  country  is  dependent  upon  such  incursions:  Mr.  Schwarz 
has  shown  in  his  report*  that  there  can  have  been  no  invasion  of  the 
moth  from  the  Bahamas  since  1866.  And  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that 
moths  have  come  to  us  from  the  islands  .south  of  the  Bahamas  since  that 
date,  for  in  that  case  the  latter  islands  would  have  been  restocked  with 
worms  by  some  of  the  migrating  individuals  on  the  passage  to  this  coun- 
try. With  regard  to  the  possibility  of  receiving  moths  from  Cuba,  we  find 
that,  although  cotton  is  indigenous  there,  very  little  is  grown ;  and,  too, 
there  is  no  evidence  of  an  excessive  multiplication  of  the  cotton-worm 
on  the  island.  In  a  collection  of  insects  injurious  to  cotton  made  by  my 
friend  Mr.  B.  W.  Law,  near  Havana,  not  a  specimen  of  Aletia  was  found. 
Hence  we  cannot  believe  that  since  the  year  1866  our  country  has  buf- 
fered to  any  great  extent  by  immigrations  of  inoths  from  the  West  Indies. 

*  Appendix  I.     Report  of  E.  A.  Schwarz. 


INFLUENCE    OF    WIND.  121 

Certainly  the  presence  of  cotton-worms  in  Florida,  Georgia,  and  Ala- 
bama cannot  be  dependent  upon  the  incursion  of  moths  from  those 
islands,  neither  does  it  seem  probable  that  swarms  of  moths  come  into 
those  States  annually  from  Mexico  by  way  of  Texas,  Louisiana,  and 
Mississippi.  In  the  first  place  but  little  cotton  is  grown  in  the  northern 
part  of  Mexico ;  secondly,  the  worms  appear  as  early  in  Alabama,  Georgia, 
and  Florida  as  they  do  in  Texas,  which  would  not  be  the  case  if  their 
presence  were  dependent  upon  flights  of  moths  via  the  latter  State. 

Briefly,  our  conclusions  are  that  although  the  adult  Aletia  may  occa- 
sionally come  into  the  Gulf  States  from  regions  farther  south,  the  pres- 
ence of  the  cotton- worm  in  those  States  is  not  dependent  upon  such  im- 
migrations. 

INFLUENCE   OF  WINDS  ON  IMMIGRATION  OF  MOTHS. 

In  the  course  of  the  present  investigation  considerable  attention  has 
been  given  to  a  study  of  the  winds  of  the  Southern  States  as  bearing  on 
the  theory  of  migrations  of  the  moths.  The  results  of  this  study  are 
quite  important.  For,  although  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  moths  sur- 
vive the  winter  in  all  of  the  Gulf  States,  it  is  of  interest  to  know  if  we 
are  also  subject  to  immigrations  of  this  pest. 

As  to  the  question  whether  the  winds  from  the  south  are  sufficiently 
strong  and  constant  to  counteract  the  prevailing  trade  winds,  which  are 
toward  the  equator,  the  opinions  of  correspondents  differ  widely.  In  some 
instances  the  question  has  not  been  fully  understood,  the  replies  being 
found  too  unintelligible  to  use  as  evidence  either  way.  As  a  brief  sum- 
mary of  opinions,  however,  it  may  be  stated  that  60  per  cent,  of  the  replies 
affirm  that  the  south  winds  are  sufficiently  strong  to  counteract  the  trade 
winds,  28  per  cent,  are  in  the  negative,  with  5  per  cent,  of  doubtful  answers. 
Some  of  the  statements  are  made  most  positively,  and  seem  almost  con- 
vincing in  regard  to  migration  of  the  moths.  Mr.  E.  M.  Thompson,  of 
Jefferson,  Ga.,  mentions  that  strange  birds  and  fowls,  foreign  to  the 
climate,  are  found  in  his  locality,  blown  and  left  there  by  southerly  winds, 
and,  from  this  circumstance,  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  south  winds  are 
sufficiently  constant  and  heavy  to  bring  the  moths  from  that  direction. 

The  following  extracts  are  given  as  examples  of  the  replies  under  this 
heading : 

Orangeburyh,  Orangeburyh  County,  South  Carolina. — During  June,  July,  and  August 
we  have  strong  south  wind,  beginning  about  eight  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  lasting 
until  late  at  night,  plenty  strong  enough  to  bring  moths  from  a  great  distance. — [Paul 
S.  Felder. 

Crittenden's  Mills,  Ala. — I- think  we  have  [south  winds  strong  enough  to  counteract 
the  prevailing  trade  winds],  as,  during  February  and  March,  the  winds  blow  down 
many  trees  here.  The  southern  border  of  this  county  is  within  50  miles  of  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico;  hence  we  have  heavy  Gulf  winds. — [J.  C.  Matthews. 

Woodi'ille,  Wilkinson  County,  Mississippi.— Yes ;  beyond  a  doubt.  Nearly  every  year— 
perhaps  I  should  say  every  year — such  winds  occur. — [D.  L.  Phares. 

Decaturvllle,  Decatur  County,  Tennessee. — There  are  times  when  our  south  and  south- 
west winds  are  strong  enough  to  counteract  any  other. — [John  McMillan. 

Larissa  Cherokee  County,  Texas.— There  are  [strong  south  winds]  caused  by  the  large 


122  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

surface  of  prairio  in  the  State,  which  turn  our  northeast  trade,  or  what  would  be  such, 
to  south,  southeast,  or  southwest.— [William  Barnes. 

Millheim,  Austin  County,  Texas. — In  some  years,  the  winds  are  sufficiently  strong  to 
have  the  effect  [of  counteracting  the  trade  winds].  I  have  noticed  that  the  strong 
winds  from  the  south  and  southwest  generally  occur  in  a  dry  year. — [  J.  H.  Kraucher. 

Union  Springs,  Autauga,  County,  Alabama. — Trade  winds  have  but  little  influence  in 
this  part  of  Alabama. — [  J.  R.  Rodgers. 

Jayville,  Conecuh  County,  Alabama. — While  I  think  the  wind  is  often  strong  enough 
from  the  south  to  drive  before  it  the  caterpillar  fly,  I  am  not  at  all  inclined  to  the 
opinion  that  they  get  here  in  that  way,  unless  it  be  the  fly  of  the  army- worm. — [An- 
drew Jay. 

Lake  Saint  John,  Concordia  Parish,  Louisiana. — During  March  and  April  the  prevail- 
ing wind  is  south  and  west,  lasting  sometimes  a  week,  strong  enough  and  lasting  long 
enough  to  bring  a  moth  from  South  America,  I  should  think.  I  have  no  record  of  the 
wind,  but  if  the  moths  are  brought  here  by  the  wind,  which  I  think  they  are,  it  is 
during  the  months  of  March,  April,  and  May. — [H.  B.  Shaw. 

Isabella,  Worth  County,  Georgia. — Not  often,  only  occasionally. — [Wm.  A.  Harris. 

Burkeville,  Lowndes  County,  Alabama. — South  winds  but  seldom  prevail  for  longer 
than  24  hours,  occasionally  two  days  with  decided  prevalence. — [P.  T.  Graves. 

Enterprise,  Clark  County,  Mississippi. — Rarely  ever  have  strong  winds  from  the  south 
long  at  a  time. — [W.  Speillmau. 

Dennison's  Landing,  Perry  County,  Tennessee. — I  cannot  remember  to  have  observed 
winds  from  the  south  sufficiently  strong  to  have  counteracted  the  prevailing  trade 
winds  toward  the  equator.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D. 

Hempstead,  Waller  County,  Texas. — Do  not  believe  our  winds  are  sufficiently  strong 
or  continuous  to  have  any  effect  on  the  trade  winds. — [S.  P.  Clark. 

Mulbeiry,  Autauga  County,  Alabama. — I  can  scarcely  credit  the  suggestion  that  the 
wind  is  sufficiently  strong  and  continuous  from  the  south  to  have  much  influence  on 
the  transportation  of  the  moth.—  [C.  W.  Howard. 

From  these  statements,  even  where  they  are  given  negatively,  it  will 
be  seen  that  there  are  short  periods  tof  strong  southerly  winds  in  nearly 
every  one  of  the  cotton  States.  Upon  the  sea-coast  the  winds  are  of 
course  stronger  and  more  constant  in  their  prevailing  southerly  direc- 
tion than  in  the  interior.  The  question  then  arises  as  to  how  many  days 
will  be  required  for  the  wind  to  blow— with  force— in  a  given  direction, 
to  bring  the  moths  from  the  nearest  point  to  the  southward  of  the 
United  States  at  which  they  may  be  found. 

As  early  as  May,  at  Indianola,  Tex.,  the  winds  are  almost  wholly 
southerly,  and  by  reference  to  the  weather-bureau  records  for  that 
month  it  will  be  seen  that  an  average  velocity  of  17  miles  per  hour  is 
recorded  for  the  five  nights  from  the  15th  to  the  19th,  inclusive  j  the 
exact  point  of  the  compass  indicated  being  southeast.  This  is  the  high- 
est velocity  for  southerly  night  winds  at  Indianola  recorded  for  the 
month  of  May,  1873  (the  average  being  but  9.5  for  the  entire  31  days), 
and  probably  as  high  as  in  any  other  mouth.  The  average  for  the  nine 
stations  in  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  and  Texas,  for 
the  three  months,  April,  May,  and  June,  1873,  is  found  to  be  but  a  frac- 
tion less  than  6  miles  per  hour.  How  far  then  are  we  able  to  judge  by 
general  averages,  when  we  consider  that  there  are  days  of  almost  total 
calm,  the  force  hardly  reaching  1  or  2  miles  per  hour,  and  but  few  days 
when  the  velocity  reaches  15  to  20  miles  per  hour  I  The  question  of 


SYNOPSIS    OF    ANSWERS    TO    QUESTIONS    ON   WIND.  123 

migration,  therefore,  as  affected  by  winds,  is  narrowed  down  to  these 
two  considerations : 

1.  Has  a  south  or  southerly  breeze,  with  a  velocity  of  12  to  20  miles 
an  hour,  sufficient  force  to  bring  the  cotton- worm  moth  from  the  "peren- 
nial cotton-fields  ?  " 

2.  Would  an  occasional  strong  breeze  of  one,  three,  or  five  days'  dura- 
tion, at  the  rate  of  velocity  given,  allow  a  sufficient  length  of  time  for 
the  moth  to  make  its  journey  ? 

If  these  questions  can  be  answered  affirmatively,  having  in  mind  that 
the  moths  are  moved  by  the  winds  within  our  own  borders,  we  have  a 
very  strong  argument  in  favor  of  the  theory  that  the  insects  are  brought 
to  the  cotton  States  from  the  southward  at  the  beginning  of  the  season, 
for  the  winds  are  almost  constantly  from  the  southward  through  the 
season  when  the  moths  would  most  likely  take  advantage  of  them.  The 
ordinary  low  rate  of  velocity  (for  night  winds)  often  increases  to  12,  15r 
18,  or  22  miles  per  hour,  and  this  force,  with  slight  variation,  occasion- 
ally continues  for  two  or  three,  or  even  five  days  in  succession.  If,  on 
the  contrary,  a  higher  velocity  is  required  than  the  figures  in  the  tables 
indicate,  and  for  a  longer  duration  of  time  than  has  been  stated,  the  wind 
records  prove  that  the  destruction  of  1873  was  not  occasioned  by  the 
progeny  of  moths  that  came  across  the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 

In  the  circular  sent  out  by  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  the  corre- 
spondents were  requested  to  furnish  data  upon  the  two  points  named — 
prevailing  direction  and  velocity — for  each  month  separately  from  Feb- 
ruary to  June,  and  collectively  from  July  until  frost.  Keplies  were  re- 
ceived from  over  seventy  localities  in  the  cotton  States,  the  greater  ma- 
jority from  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  and  Texas.  As  a  wholer 
these  observations  bear  evidence  of  reliability,  though  in  some  cases  the 
question  has  been  misunderstood,  and  two  or  three  points  of  the  compass 
indicated  at  once  as  the  "prevailing"  direction  for  the  month.  In  view 
of  this  error  in  making  up  the  returns  it  was  found  necessary,  for  the 
sake  of  approximate  correctness,  to  tabulate  all  of  the  observations,  and 
thus  ascertain  the  prevailing  direction  by  calculating  the  percentages 
for  each  point  of  the  compass.  The  figures  thus  obtained  cannot,  of 
course,  be  relied  upon  as  absolutely  correct,  as  the  replies  are  not  given 
from  actual  records,  or  for  a  particular  year,  but  as  general  observa- 
tions. The  reply  of  "  variable,"  which  occurs  occasionally  in  the  returns, 
necessarily  alters  the  final  figures  in  estimating  the  percentages  of  winds 
from  the  different  points ;  still  the  results  obtained  agree  very  closely 
with  the  official  figures,  as  ascertained  from  the  records  of  the  United 
States  Signal  Office. 

As  has  been  stated,  the  replies  are  principally  from  four  of  the  Gulf 
States,  though  ten  States  are  represented  in  the  returns.  The  total  num- 
ber of  answers  for  the  different  months  amount  to  about  four  hundred. 
These  observations  are  for  day  and  not  night  winds.  For  convenience  of 
tabulation,  as  well  as  to  save  unnecessary  labor,  but  four  "  directions" 


124 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


are  indicated  in  the  tables,  viz,  northerly,  to  include  northeast,  north, 
and  northwest;  southerly,  to  include  southeast,  south,  and  southwest; 
and  east  and  west.  When  south  winds  are  mentioned  or  the  letter  S  oc- 
curs, therefore,  either  due  south,  southeast,  or  southwest  are  to  be  un- 
derstood. 

From  a  study  of  the  northerly  and  southerly  winds,  as  given  in  these 
returns,  we  find  that  prevailing  southerly  winds  occur  in  February  in  but 
two  States,  Alabama  and  Texas,  in  the  ratios  of  7  to  4,  and  10  to  7,  re- 
spectively. In  Georgia  the  northerly  winds  prevail  in  the  ratio  of  7  to 
4  in  each  State,  while  in  the  other  States  they  are  equal.  In  March 
northerly  winds  prevail  only  in  North  Carolina  and  Florida,  while  the 
northerly  and  southerly  winds  are  equal  in  South  Carolina  and  Georgia, 
and  southerly  winds  prevail  in  the  remaining  States.  For  April,  May, 
and  June  the  prevailing  direction  is  almost  invariably  southerly  for  all 
the  States,  with  the  exception  of  Florida  and  Tennessee,  where  they  are 
about  equal.  In  the  Gulf  States  the  percentages  of  southerly  winds  run 
very  high,  culminating  in  June.  For  the  remainder  of  the  year,  until 
frost,  the  months  have  been  considered  as  a  whole,  though  a  subsequent 
study  of  the  weather-bureau  returns  shows  that  it  would  have  been  better 
to  have  considered  them  separately,  as  a  decided  change  in  direction, 
particularly  in  the  Gulf  States,  takes  place  in  September,  so  marked  a 
change  indeed  that  the  records  of  north  winds  in  September  and  October 
almost  neutralize  the  high  percentage  of  south  winds  in  July  and  Au- 
gust. 

The  following  tabulation  of  returns  for  the  different  months  for  the 
State  of  Alabama  will  illustrate  the  manner  in  which  the  questions  are 
answered : 

ALABAMA. 


County. 

Town. 

February. 

March. 

April. 

Mulberry 

Iff 

E  andN 

Variable 

Bullock 

W 

W  and  N  W 

•Greene  
Hale  
Lowndea  
Marengo  
Montgomery.  .. 

Forklancl...8  
Green  Springs  — 
Lowndeaborough  . 
Faunsdale  
Pike  Road  
Mount  Meiga 

N.andN.E  
S.W.andS.E  
E.andS  
S.E  
E.andS.E  
Variable 

N.andN.E  
S.E.andS.W  
E.andS  
S.E  
E.andS.E  

N. 
S.E. 
E.  and  S. 
S.E. 
E.  and  S.  E. 
S  W.  variable 

Do 

S  E  to  N  W 

S  E  to  X  W 

S  W  to  N  E 

Sumter  
Wilcox 

Gaston  

S.&S.W.,N".  &N.W 

S.E.&S.,  W.  &N.W 
E  and  W 

S.  E.  and  S. 
W  toN  E 

Dale   

Crittenden's  Mills 

S.  W.,andS.  W 

W.  and  N.  W. 

May. 

June. 

July  till  froat. 

Antanga 

Mulberry 

Variable 

Variable 

Variable. 

Bullock  

S.  and  S.  W  .  .  . 

S.andS.W  

W.  and  N.  W. 

Forkland 

s 

s      ...        

S.  and  S.  W. 

Hale 

S  E  and  S  W 

E.  in  fall. 

Marengo  
Montgomery  .  .  . 
Do 

Faunsdale  
PikoRoad  
Mount  Meiga 

S.E.... 
E.andS.E  
Southerly 

S.E.... 
E.andS.E  

S.E. 
E.  and  S.  E. 
W.  and  souther)  v. 

Do 

Gentle  S 

Sumter  
Wilcox  
Dale  

Gaaton  
Camden  
Crittenden'e  Mills 

S.  E.andS  
S.toN.E  
S.and  W  

S.  andS.W  
S.toN.E  
S.and  W  

S.  nnd  W.,  variable. 
N.W. 
W.  and  N.  W. 

TABLES    OF    PREVAILING    DIRECTION    OF    WINDS. 


125 


The  following  table  gives  the  prevailing  direction  in  each  of  the  ten 
States  for  the  months  indicated,  as  compiled  from  the  returns,  with  the 
ratio  of  northerly  to  southerly  winds  for  each : 


States. 

February. 

March. 

April. 

Direc- 
tion. 

Ratio  N. 
to  S.  winds. 

Direc- 
tion. 

Ratio  N. 
to  S.  winds. 

Direc- 
tion. 

Ratio  N. 
to  S.  winds. 

North  Carolina  

N. 

5. 

s. 

N. 

5  to  .2 
0 
4  to    7 
7  to    4 

N. 

K. 
S. 
S. 

s'. 
s. 

Ot 

2  to  1 
5  to  6 
3  to  6 
0 
2  to  8 
1  to  3 

N. 

S. 

sT 
s. 
s. 
s. 
s. 

2  to  1 
3  to  4 

4  to  7 
1  to  7 
0 
0 
0 

South  Carolina 

Florida                 

Alabama 

Mississippi     

Texas      

S. 

sT 

7  to  10 
1  to    2 

»     States. 

May. 

June. 

July  till  frost. 

Direc- 
tion. 

Ratio  N. 
to  S.  winds. 

Direc- 
tion. 

Ratio  N. 
to  S.  winds. 

Direc- 
tion. 

Ratio  N. 
to  S.  winds. 

North  Carolina  ... 

S. 
S. 
S. 

sT 
s. 

0 
0 
2  to    6 

2  to  10 
1  to    7 

S. 

s! 
s. 
s. 

0 
1  to  6 
0 
0 
0 

1 

S. 

o' 

0 
0 
5  to    7 
1  to    2 
8  to  11 
1  to    7 

South  Carolina 

Georgia  

Florida 

Alabama  

Texas      

s. 
s. 

0 
0 

s. 
s. 
s. 

0 

0 
0 

s. 
s. 
s. 

1  to  10 
0 
1  to    2 

*A  dash  signifies  that  the  northerly  and  southerly  winds  for  the  month  are  about  equal. 
t  Returns  meager,  and  no  southerly  or  northerly  winds  recorded,  as  the-  case  may  be. 

As  a  brief  summary  of  the  information  contained  in  the  department 
returns,  in  relation  to  direction,  the  following  figures  are  given,  showing 
the  prevailing  direction  of  the  winds  for  the  cotton  States,  as  a  whole, 
with  the  percentages  of  winds  in  each  point  of  the  compass  for  the 
months  named.  The  percentages  are  estimated  per  hundred  observa- 
tions : 


Prevailing  direction. 

Febru- 
ary. 

March. 

April. 

May. 

June. 

'& 

frost. 

Northerly  (K.,  N.  E.,  and  N.  W)  
East 

40.2 
11  2 

31.7 
14  3 

21.5 
10  7 

12.9 
11.2 

2.2 
6.6 

22.9. 
16.  » 

Southerly  (S.  S.  E.,  and  S.  W)    

40.2 

46.0 

56.0 

69.3 

80.0 

50.0 

West 

8.4 

7.9 

10.7 

6.4 

11.0 

1(5.0. 

After  the  completion  of  the  work  on  these  returns  it  was  thought  ad- 
visable to  verify  the  statements  by  records  of  actual  daily  observation  r 
obtained  from  the  Weather  Bureau  of  the  War  Department,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  make  the  report  more  valuable  by  taking  into  account,, 
at  the  same  time,  the  velocity  of  the  winds,  which  has  hardly  been  con- 
sidered in  the  department  returns,  or  indicated  in  too  vague  a  manner 
to  be  reduced  to  figures  for  tabulation. 


126  EEPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

The  tri-daily  records  for  the  year  1873  were  decided  upon,  as  this  was 
known  to  be  a  year  in  which  the  worm  was  particularly  destructive,  and 
thirteen  stations  were  selected,  in  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida,  Ala- 
bama, Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Texas,  and  Tennessee,  from  which  to  ob- 
tain the  necessary  data.  As  the  moths  are  nocturnal  in  habits,  the 
night  winds  only  were  considered,  and  the  record  of  11  o'clock  p.  m.  for 
each  day  of  the  nine  months,  from  February  to  October,  were  tabulated, 
making,  in  all,  between  four  and  five  thousand  daily  records.  From  the 
interesting  data  thus  obtained  a  number  of  tables  have  been  prepared, 
which  confirm  the  previous  statement.  In  studying  the  tables  of  velocity, 
it  will  be  noted  that  the  figures  are  very  low  in  some  cases,  and  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  records  are  for  night  winds,  which  are  always 
lighter  than  the  winds  occurring  in  the  day-time,  unless  when  preceding 
or  accompanying  storms.  The  storm  winds,  generally  speaking,  are 
from  other  points  of  the  compass  than  south. 

The  calms  have  also  been  considered  the  records  for  furnishing  inter- 
esting data  for  study  in  connection  with  ^the  subject  of  this*  chapter. 
Twenty-five  days  (nights)  of  calm  in  July,  and  twenty-seven  days  in 
August,  in  Augusta,  Ga.,  would  not  assist  the  moths  in  their  migrations 
in  that  locality  to  any  alarming  degree.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  how- 
ever, that  Augusta  is  an  exception  to  the  other  stations  in  this  matter 
of  calms. 

The  records  for  Texas,  made  at  Indianola  and  Galveston,  should  be 
corrected  slightly  for  inland  localities,  as  the  winds  on  the  coast,  and 
backward  for  a  few  miles,  are  more  invariably  southerly,  and  blow  with 
greater  force  than  higher  up  in  the  cotton  regions.  They  are  not  far  out 
of  the  way  as  indicating  general  direction,  as  can  easily  be  verified  by 
reference  to  inland  stations  in  adjacent  States.  Key  West,  Fla.,  was 
particularly  chosen  from  its  maritime  situation,  and  is  an  exception  to  all 
the  other  stations,  the  wind  prevailing  from  the  eastward  for  almost  the 
entire  nine  months,  as  indicated  in  the  tables,  the  prevailing  direction 
in  February  and  October  being  northerly.  A  study  of  wind  records  at 
various  points  on  the  West  India  Islands  would  prove  interesting,  and 
might  throw  considerable  light  upon  the  question  under  consideration. 

The  four  following  tables  show  the  prevailing  direction  of  winds  at  the 
sattions  named  for  the  months  of  February  to  October  (inclusive),  1873, 
and  the  fifth  contains  a  summary  of  the  whole. 

By  reference  to  the  first  line  of  figures  in  Tables  A  and  B  for  each 
station,  the  total  number  of  northerly,  east,  southerly,  or  west  winds,  and 
number  of  days  of  calm  for  each  month,  will  be  found  indicated  by  the 
word  direction.  In  the  second  line  is  given  the  average  velocity  in  miles 
per  hour,  expressed  decimally,  and  in  the  two  remaining  lines  the  highest 
and  lowest  records  of  velocity  during  the  month  are  stated.  In  some 
cases  an  apparent  discrepancy  may  be  noted  between  the  number  of 
days  in  the  calendar  month  and  the  total  number  of  days  of  recorded 
winds  and  calms,  caused  by  the  absence  of  observations,  in  some  in- 


SUMMARY,  127 

stances,  in  the  printed  records  of  the  Weather  Bureau  from  which  these 
returns  are  made  up. 

Beferring  to  the  fifth  table,  we  have  an  exhibit  of  the  number  of  days 
of  perceptible  winds  from  all  quarters  (without  considering  calms);  the 
prevailing  direction  for  the  month,  and  the  percentage  of  prevailing 
winds,  calculated  from  the  totals  of  actual  days  of  wind  for  the  month,  as 
above. 

A  study  of  these  tables  reveals  the  fact  that  the  prevailing  direction 
of  the  winds  in  the  cotton  States,  as  far  as  we  are  able  to  judge  from 
the  thirteen  stations,  is  almost  without  exception  southerly  for  six  months 
of  the  year  from  March  to  August,  ranging  from  31  to  93  per  cent. 
Further,  that  the  prevailing  direction  for  the  remaining  months — Feb- 
rua  IT,  September,  and  October — is  quite  variable.  During  the  month  of 
February,  however,  southerly  winds  prevailed  in  Charleston,  Savannah, 
Lake  City,  Vicksburg,  New  Orleans,  Indianola,  and  Galveston.  In  Mo- 
bile the  northerly  and  southerly  winds  were  equal,  and  of  the  remain- 
ing five  stations,  three  indicate  a  northerly  direction,  and  one,  each,  east 
and  west.  For  the  month  of  September  the  winds  are  southerly  at 
Shreveport,  Indianola,  and  Galveston,  east  at  Key  West,  and  northerly 
at  the  remaining  stations.  The  October  winds  at  Vicksburg,  Indianola, 
and  Galveston  are  southerly;  at  New  Orleans  the  southerly  and  north- 
erly winds  are  equal,  and  in  the  remaining  States  the  latter  direction 
prevails.  The  highest  percentage  of  northerly  winds  is  83  per  cent,  and 
the  lowest  35  per  cent. 


128  REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

•nn«o|    „»  I  IS  |  |  I,,  I  I  U  I  I  I*  I  I  12  I  I  lo  I  I  I     I 


1 

1          ' 

s 

t 


loo   I 


eg  g  oo  « •*  • 


i8 
IS 


I   ^Q  I  lo  I  I  U  I  I  U  I  I  U  I  I  U  I  I  U  I  I  I 


I        a! 


_ '1'iw =5 ^ 

nneo|    ^o  I   U  I   I   lo  I    I   U  I   I   lo  I   I   U  I   I   It-  j   I   I         § 


oiriao-*o5tON 


•2  -" 


-   -    =   ::    /.  .-.   rj  — -c  i- £  —  —  =  £ 


n 

l! 


>»  loo  I    I      {  I 

iaf*ja±_  § 


- 


1 


ill!   i| 

s 


"of 

s  t^ 

1 1 

•^  5 

rfS  ^ 

•"S  pq 

8  !zi 

f  g 

I  8 


TABLE    OF    WINDS. 

fl  I  I  I-  I  I  U  I  I  lo  I  i  L  I  I  U  I  :  i 


l^^001^^]*000^^^^         ^t^^'H^tr~S^^^?Hr^_ 


I  I  IN  I  I  U I  I  lo  I  :  :«  I  I  U  I  I 


INOONCXICOOiHOOCO-^lOOrHt-rHMCO     Ir-ltOO     I 


8aswiasg 


i  i  u 1 1  ui  i  io 1 1  ui  1 1_ M  i 


OOOOCOOOSMO 


>,-!•*•*     |  WlriONOO     I 


oooo<Ncdin<N 


o  I    I    lo   I    I    U   I    I    lo   I    I    U   I    I    lea   I    I    I 


loo   I    l«t^< 


nipso      «  I  I  U  M  1 1-  I  1  I  o  I  I  U  I  M  o  I  I  I 


II 


13  i  1 1! ! !  il ! !  ill!  ;|  i !  IS  1 ! 

03  >>>>  :?>a>,  '•">>>»  !ffl>5  C""  &  >i  >L  !  •  >, . '    ! 

X~S  —  >.  --r  -'>  Z--'~^  •'•—  -  -•  '^  -  -">-.:?*' ^"  !»> 


9  01 


129 


130 


1  CO 

«     £ 


*   h 

II 

H  !  i 

I  1  I 

a  f  i 


l  5 

«    p 

^  ^ 


REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

i  i  in  i  i  u  i  i  loo  i  i.- 1  MS  i  i  iSo  i  i 


i  1 


l-tf* 


Jz;          »ii>wexiift^ooc«w««Noig'o9»iqI?:o,H2|t^ 


I  NM.COCOC5oOCOtOCO-<J"r-ICOC<icONlOCO'-*N 


O  10  10 


1    1    U  1    1    1  *-  1    1    1  o  1    1    I  r-  1    H  t.   1    II  JH  1    1    1 


O  irf  00  -*  <N  •*•«*<    loOlOOOlM^OOrH-^OOM'ttJNrt-^JJC 


05          ooo... 


30  JQC 


:.a  :  !  :.9  •  :j.S  :  :  :.3  i  :  -3  •  •  :S  :  :  :.9 
|*§&|-*§S.!*§»St.tij.|.|'.fel^frlt 

iiiiiiiiii 


SB 

1    I 

0  •« 


TABLE    OF    WINDS. 


131 


*  I    I    U  !    I    U  I    I    U  I    I    lo  M    U  I    I    1 


t-  00  CO  tO  (0  CO 

CO  OO-^t-COO-^t-r-IIM-^OOtHOOOO^CSt^OOiHOJINSOl-t 


llUIMt.lllollUIII.elll 


1  i  !  ,-  I  I  I  c,  I  I  U  I  I  U  I  I  U  I  I  I 


1NIMN  •*  W  rH  t"  W  t-  IH  tH  CO   O    I  (M  W  t-  IB  O  CO  US  i-4 


5  W  O  iH  C5  W 


J       A 


132 


REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

It 


-a  •  ITS  •  :•«  '  "«  :  :»«  t  :»»  ;  irs  •  :rs  •  "3  •  :«  •  i^s  :  :-s  :  ;>d  •  ; 
l|  ill  il|  |J|  p|  |||  |||  il|  il|  |l|  |||  |fj  ill  i 

j?£2  |"S^  I'sS  ?'£c! §•££!  §£^  b^S  §£^2  §1$  ^£2  f-l^  ^^  I'SS 

•g  M  ^  tt  ?,;-S  tc  ?t'-5  it  ^  tc  ?,;^  sc  fir's  tr  ?£'-s  tr  f^  tt  it's  u  gc'-s  tt  ^  tc  g^a  w  ?t 
*£3*££*-z3*£3*-"3*-B3*-B3*-B£*~3*-3£%£3>z£2<?33 

8§i 

1  !  I  i  i  1  I  I  I  I  I  i  I 


CHAPTER    V. 

INFLUENCE  OF  WEATHEK. 

It  seems  curious  that  observers  should  be  so  divided  in  opinion  as  they 
are  concerning  so  simple  a  point  as  whether  a  mild  or  a  severe  winter 
is  the  more  apt  to  be  followed  by  a  bad  worm  season.  Of  the  corre- 
spondents of  the  department,  some  hold  one  view,  others  the  directly 
opposite  opinion,  while  still  others  state  that  the  degree  of  severity  of 
the  winter  makes  no  difference  whatever  with  the  extent  of  the  ravages 
the  succeeding  season.  Those  holding  the  last  view  base  their  opinion 
on  the  fact  that  they  have  actually  known  disastrous  worm  seasons  to 
follow  cold  and  warm  winters  indiscriminately.* 

Those  holding  the  opposing  views  referred  to  also  claim  to  found  their 
opinions  upon  actual  experience.  The  advocates  of  the  view  that  a 
severe  winter  will  be  followed  by  the  worm  give  as  their  explanation  the 
fact  that  during  warm  winters  the  moths  come  forth  from  their  hibernat- 
ing quarters  and  die  of  hunger,  whereas  while  in  winter  quarters  and  in 
the  true  state  of  hibernating  somnolency  not  only  is  no  food  necessary, 
but  they  are  less  exposed  to  dangers  of  all  kinds  which  would  assail 
them  if  they  flew  out,  attracted  by  sunshiny  weather.  The  upholders 
of  the  theory  that  warm  winters  are  more  apt  to  be  followed  by  the  worm 
simply  urge  the  idea  that  the  severity  of  the  colder  winters  kills  the 
hibernating  individuals. 

The  truth  of  the  matter,  as  it  seems  to  us,  is  that,  other  things  being 
equal,  a  warm  winter  is  more  favorable  to  hibernation  than  a  cold  one. 
It  seems  to  be  true  that  the  cotton-moth  was  originally  a  tropical  or  sub- 
tropical insect,  and  that  only  in  favored  localities  within  the  limits  of  the 
United  States  can  it  hibernate  at  all.  As  we  go  northward  the  winters 
become  too  severe  for  survival  from  one  season  to  another.  Farther 
south,  then,  winters  approaching  to  this  northern  severity  must  be  un- 
favorable, while  winters  approaching  those  of  the  normal  habitat  of  the 
moth  will  prove  favorable.  This  is  reasoning  in  the  abstract.  Actual 
experience  seems  to  show  that  occasionally  the  greatest  worm  years 
foHow  undoubtedly  cold  winters.  This  seems  to  have  been  the  case  with 
the  season  of  1873,  in  some  parts  of  Alabama  at  least.  Such  instances 
we  think,  however,  must  be  laid  to  a  combination  of  other  causes,  work- 
ing through  a  series  of  years;  and  that,  instead  of  the  severity  of  the  pre- 
ceding winter  having  been  the  sole  cause,  the  ravages  of  the  worms 
would  have  been  even  worse  had  a  mild  winter  come  before. 

Another  and  mor"e  important  point  concerning  the  influence  of  weather, 
brought  out  by  the  1878  circular,  was, — do  the  worms  flourish  most  in  a 

*  This  fact  has  been  used  as  an  argument  for  the  migration  theory. 

133 


134  EEPOKT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

wet  or  dry  season  ?  In  the  answers  to  this  question  great  unanimity 
was  found.  With  but  few  exceptions,  the  general  opinion  seems  to  be 
that  wet  years  are  the  most  disastrous  caterpillar  years. 

This  fact  (for  such  it  undoubtedly  is)  has  been  always  accounted  for 
by  the  fact  that  wet  weather  produces  a  rank  and  succulent  weed,  of 
superiornourishing  power  to  one  dwarfed  and  dried  by  continued  drought, 
and  by  the  fact  that  in  hot  dry  weather  many  worms  are  actually  killed 
by  the  heat  of  the  sun  and  by  the  oven-like  heat  of  the  earth  when 
marching  is  attempted. 

Another  point,  intimately  connected  with  this  last,  is  the  one  that  the 
low,  damp  parts  of  a  field  are  the  ones  where  the  worms  always  appear 
first  in  spring.  This  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  probable  fact  that  on 
damp  parts  of  a  plantation  the  early  cotton  grows  faster  than  on  the 
drier  parts :  nectar  is  earlier  secreted  from  the  foliar  glands ;  the  hiber- 
nating moths  are  attracted  by  the  nectar  to  that  part  of  the  field,  and  con- 
sequently more  eggs  are  there  laid. 

Both  of  these  facts  have,  however,  been  accounted  for  by  a  plausible 
theory,  first  publicly  put  forth  by  Mr.  H".  A.  Davis,  of  Cherokee  County, 
Texas,  in  1866  or  1867.  In  a  letter  of  recent  date,  Mr.  Davis  states  his 
theory  in  the  following  words : 

Hon.  WM.  G.  LE  Due, 

Commissioner  of  Agriculture : 

DEAR  SIR  :  Much  has  been  said  and  written,  and  valuable  time  and  money  ex- 
pended  in  study  and  experiments  to  learn  the  nature  and  to  destroy  that  great  enemy  of 
the  cotton  planter  of  the  South — the  cotton-worm. 

The  most  generally  received  opinion  is  that  wet  seasons  produce  the  worm,  and 
warm  dry  seasons  kill  them.  The  caterpillar  makes  its  appearance  in  the  warmest 
climates  and  at  the  hottest  season  of  the  year,  and  the  warmer  the  climate  and  the 
hotter  the  season  the  greater  their  thrift  and  multiplication.  If  they  appear  in  May 
it  will  in  this  latitude  require  at  least  32  days  to  pass  through  all  their  different 
stages ;  but  from  July  1  to  September  15  not  more  that  28  days  are  necessary. 

That  wet  seasons  are  favorable  to  their  protection  and  multiplication  we  will  not 
deny ;  but  it  is  from  other  causes. 

My  observations,  beginning  in  1866,  have  fully  satisfied  me  of  the  fallacy  of  the 
above  theories  and  as  thoroughly  convinced  me  of  the  fact  that  the  Formica  (little  red 
ant)  is  the  great  friend  and  protector  of  the  cotton  planter  of  the  South.  They  are 
found  by  the  million  in  almost  every  spot  of  land  on  which  the  cotton  plant  is  grown 
over  the  regions  of  country  liable  to  the  ravages  of  the  worm.  In  other  portions  of  the 
South  not  infested  by  the  worm  I  have  noticed  this  ant  in  but  limited  numbers, 
showing  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  the  Divine  Distributor  for  our  good.  Herewith 
I  forward  you  specimen  ant. 

When  the  weather  is  favorable  all  the  day  long,  they,  true  to  their  ancient  and 
proverbial  reputation,  are  at  work  climbing  every  plant  and  traversing  every  leaf, 
especially  the  under  side  where  the  egg  is  deposited,  and  the  young  worm  makes  its 
appearance  with  the  same  instinct  to  find  and  devour  that  is  found  in  the  miller  that 
deposits  them  there.  They  devour  the  eggs  and  the  worm  (until  about  two  days  old) 
and  finally  make  havoc  of  the  chrysalis.  The  discovery  was  accidental.  I  had  been 
watching  and  experimenting  to  learn  the  nature  and  habits  of  the  worm,  to  ascertain 
the  periods  of  their  different  stages,  and  to  learn  the  period  from  one  brood  to  another, 
and  the  probable  number  of  worms  that  might  be  expected  from  each  miller,  and  on 
this  occasion  I  was  gathering  chrysalides  to  see  what  was  the  probable  number  then 


ANTS   VS.   INFLUENCE   OF   WEATHER.  135 

on  the  plant,  compared  -with  the  number  already  on  the  wing.  Proposing  to  myself  a 
certain  number,  I  proceeded,  but  I  had  not  gathered  many  until  my  attention  was  ar- 
rested by  the  stings  of  the  ants  on  my  hands,  revenging  themselves  on  me  for  dis- 
turbing them  while  at  their  noble  work  of  protecting  me  against  my  great  enemy. 
When  I  opened  the  leaves  I  found  a  number  that  contained  neither  living  chrysalis 
nor  the  shell  from  which  the  miller  had  made  its  timely  exit,  but  a  shell  severed  in 
twain  at  the  middle  of  the  body.  The  examination  was  continued  until  it  was  found 
that  more  than  one-half  of  all  I  opened  had  been  thus  destroyed. 

My  curiosity  was  then  excited  to  know  if  it  were  the  ants  and  why  the  middle  was 
made  the  point  of  attack.  Soon  I  had  the  pleasure  of  witnessing  their  assault,  and 
discovered  the  reason  they  regarded  the  middle  as  the  vulnerable  point.  When  the 
chrysalis  was  bitten  or  stung  it  would  move  or  flounder,  each  end  moving  back  and 
forth  violently,  but  the  middle  remained  almost  motionless.  If  the  ant  had  taken  hold 
of  either  end  it  would  have  been  thrown  loose  or  perhaps  wounded ;  but  at  the  middle 
it  could  not  be  wounded  nor  its  hold  broken.  And  in  two  to  five  minutes  after  the 
assault  was  made  the  prize  was  captured,  and  the  slain  furnished  a  bountiful  repast 
for  all  present,  say  from  one  to  two  dozen. 

With  this  first  observation  we  were  not  content,  but  from  time  to  time  went  and 
watched  until  every  doubt  of  casualty  or  uncertainty  was  removed.  And  as  we  had 
begun  to  form  a  new  theory  on  witnessing  this  first  victory,  and  as  we  were  anxious 
to  know  whose  side  these  little  soldiers  were  fighting  on,  we  felt  we  were  more  than 
repaid  for  our  trouble  iu  being  able  to  perfect  that  theory,  which  to  our  mind  was 
fully  demonstrated ;  and  for  ten  years  we  have  not  seen  any  reason,  either  from  the 
press  or  our  own  observation,  to  change  the  conclusions  at  which  we  then  arrived,  and 
which  we  sent  to  the  Texas  Farmer  and  was  published  in  that  journal. 

The  theory  is  the  following,  viz :  The  ant  will  protect  the  cotton  plant  from  the  rav- 
ages of  the  caterpillar  if  no  wet  lands  are  planted  and  if  the  high  lands  are  not  plowed 
when  too  wet,  either  of  which  may  prove  fatal. 

For  the  last  ten  years  we  have  seen  the  miller  in  May  without  a  single  exception, 
and  once  in  April.  When  the  seasons  have  been  wet  the  worm  has  appeared  in  force ; 
when  dry  they  have  done  no  harm.  As  to  the  condition  or  state  in  which  it  passes 
through  the  winter,  we  are  not  fully  satisfied,  for  we  have  seen  the  miller  in  midwinter 
in  the  rotten  places  of  old  timbers. 

Suppose  in  a  field  of  one  hundred  acres  there  be  one  acre  of  land  protected  from  the 
ant  by  being  too  wet  for  its  habitation,  for  it  can  neither  live  nor  work  on  wet  lands, 
and  by  the  15th  of  May  one  miller  makes  its  deposit  of  2,000*  eggs,  which  entomolo- 
gists are  agreed  is  the  reasonable  number ;  now  by  the  same  ratio  on  June  15  we  will 
have  4,000,000 ;  on  July  15  we  will  have  8, 000, 000, 000  worms—  enough  to  consume  every 
leaf  on  the  hundred  acres  and  a  whole  neighborhood  besides ;  and  if  we  would  allow 
the  increase  to  be  one-half  the  above  the  result  will  be  the  same. 

And,  again,  if  there  should  be  half  a  dozen  millers  in  May  to  begin  the  work,  how 
vast  the  number  would  be  seen  in  July.  Yet,  with  the  hope  there  will  be  no  worms 
this  year,  planters  will  risk  the  planting  of  that  wet  acre. 

In  the  next  place,  many  planters  plow  their  lands  when  wet,  and  thereby  destroy 
the  ant  by  imbedding  them  in  mortar,  from  which  they  cannot  extricate  themselves. 
If  the  soil  is  stirred  with  a  plow  while  in  proper  condition  it  will  take  it  but  a  few 
hours  to  repair  its  house,  and  then  he  is  ready  for  the  field  again. 

When  we  first  presented  this  theory  we  were  met  with  the  statement  that  by  ob- 
servation it  was  known  that  the  worm  sometimes  defoliated  the  highlands  first;  conse- 
quently the  wet-land  theory  was  incorrect.  But  our  observations  were  not  at  fault  on 
this  subject ;  for  when  the  fly  made  its  appearance,  if  the  weather  was  showery  or  plants 
wet  until  a  late  hour  in  the  morning  and  at  an  early  hour  in  the  evening  with  the  dew, 
it  would  leave  low  laud  for  higher  ground  and  drierplants  to  deposit  its  eggs.  There- 
fore, the  highest  and  driest  portions  of  the  field  would  be  the  first  destroyed;  and 

*  Figures  four  times  too  large.— J.  H.  C. 


136  EEPOET  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

if  the  fields  were  all  of  this  character  some  neighboring  fields  would  suffer  from  the 
injudicious  example  of  him  who  planted  low,  wet  lauds. 

Let  no  wet  lands  be  planted  on  which  the  ant  cannot  live,  nor  let  the  highlands  be 
plowed  while  wet  to  destroy  the  ant,  and  I  am  persuaded  that  the  cotton  crop  will 
never  be  destroyed  by  the  worm  again.  The  observance  of  these  facts  will  do  more 
than  all  the  poisons  discovered  and  all  the  poison-distributers  combined  to  protect 
the  planter  in  his  toil  and  guarantee  him  the  rewards  of  his  hands. 

And,  in  conclusion,  I  will  say  to  those  that  are  skeptical,  you  have  but  to  go  to  the 
field  and  see  for  yourself,  and  you  will  no  longer  be  doubtful. 

Hoping  these  suggestions  may  lead  to  inquiry,  and  that  some  system  will  be  sug- 
gested that  will  secure  concert  of  action,  even  if  by  legislation,  I  am,  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

N.  A.  DAVIS, 

JACKSONVILLE,  TEX.,  August  16,  1879. 

Almost  simultaneously  with  the  letter  from  Mr.  Davis  in  one  extreme 
of  the  cotton  belt  came  a  communication  from  Mr.  J.  C.  Brown,  of  Willet, 
Barnwell  County,  South  Carolina,  the  other  extreme,  expressing  almost 
precisely  the  same  views.  Mr.  Brown  introduced  this  in  his  reply  to  the 
1878  circular,  which  he  had  retained  until  this  time  to  make  further 
observations.  He  says : 

The  common  ant  maintains  an  equilibrium  icJten  it  is  not  too  wet.  The  ant  will 
destroy  the  eggs  unless  the  rainy  weather  keeps  it  in  its  retreat.  This  is  the  reason 
that  a  dry  season  is  never  a  caterpillar  one. 

Upon  receiving  this  we  wrote  to  Mr.  Brown  for  further  particulars 
and  received  the  following  reply : 

DEAR  SIR :  In  answer  to  yours  of  the  29th  instant  in  relation  to  cotton-worm  and 
whether  the,  common  ants  were  destructive  to  it,  would  reply  that  I  have  observed 
the  ant  on  the  cotton-plant  and  apparently  searching  it  for  prey.  During  sunny 
weather  they  are  numerous,  every  cotton-plant  having  several  crawling  over  it,  and 
they  do  destroy  the  eggs  of  the  cotton-worm,  for  I  have  seen  them  stop  as  soon  as  they 
came  across  them  and  eat  and  carry  them  away.  In  wet  weather  the  ant  has  retreated 
to  its  quarters  and  few  can  be  found  anywhere  in  the  cotton  field,  and  the  caterpillars 
have  undisturbed  opportunity  to  multiply  and  increase. 

We  have  the  worm  here  now  in  force,  and  would  be  greatly  damaged,  but  its  first 
appearance  was  two  weeks  too  late.  And  I  have  noticed  that  my  theory  of  the  ant 
has  had  additional  substantials  for  its  support,  for  during  four  or  five  sunny  days 
there  is  a  decided  increase  and  activity  on  the  part  of  the  ant  and  a  marked  decrease 
of  the  same  on  the  part  of  the  worm. 
Yours,  respectfully, 

JAMES  C.  BROWN. 

WILLET,  BARNWELL  COUNTY,  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

This  same  idea  is  again  expressed  by  Mr.  Douglass  M.  Hamilton,  of 
Saint  Francisville,  La.,  in  his  report,  in  which  he  says :  "Ants  of  many 
kinds  are  found  preying  on  them  in  good  weather,  but  not  in  bad,  and  this 
is  the  reason  given  why  the  worm  increases  so  much  faster  in  rainy,  wet 
weather  than  in  dry  and  fair  weather." 

Mr.  Wm.  V.  Keary,  of  North  Bend,  Cheneyville,  Parish  of  Kapides, 
Louisiana,  December  17, 1877,  in  writing  to  J.  Curtis  Waldo,  says :  "  The 
cotton  caterpillar  requires  a  wet  season  to  accumulate,  as  such  weather 


CONCLUSIONS    UPON   INFLUENCE    OF   WEATHER.  137 

is  destructive  to  its  natural  enemies,  the  ant,  and  also  an  insect  called 
the  ichneumon,"  &c. 

Professor  Biley  informs  me  in  conversation  that  the  same  point  has 
been  forced  upon  his  attention  during  his  investigations  the  past  summer, 
and  it  will  probably  be  elaborated  in  the  forthcoming  bulletin  of  the 
United  States  Entomological  Commission. 

The  following  extracts  from  Mr.  Trelease's  note-book  are  of  interest  in 
this  connection : 

September  10,  1879. — On  the  second  place,  where  100  acres  are  eaten  out  entirely,  I  find 
thousands  of  nearly-grown  aletias  crawling  in  every  direction.  .  In  wet  places  they  are 
not  so  much  molested  by  ants,  for  there  are  few  of  these;  but  on  dry,  sandy  places  I 
find  ants  killing  many  1  arvse.  *  *  *  Can  it  be  that  aletia  first  appears  in  wet 
places  because  the  ants  are  not  so  numerous  there  as  on  high,  sandy  places  ?  Early  I 
found  caterpillars  on  both  bottom  and  ridge  land.  Were  not  most  of  the  latter  killed  ? 
This  theory  must  be  taken  in  connection  with  that  of  the  nectar,  for  certainly  there 
are  more  eggs  laid  in  wet  ground.  Can  it  not  be  that  this  is  partly  due  to  the  fact 
that  more  moths  are  excluded  in  such  places  and  lay  their  eggs  without  leaving  them  ? 

The  one  sentence,  "Early  I  found  caterpillars  on  loth  bottom  and  ridge 
lands,"  forms  a  strong  argument  for  Mr.  Davis's  theory. 

And  now  as  to  our  own  conclusions :  If  it  can  be  shown  that  the  num- 
ber of  cotton- worms  actually  killed  by  the  ants  is  as  great  as  stated  by 
the  upholders  of  the  theory,  then  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  it  ac- 
counts for  observed  facts.  In  the  next  chapter  is  given  what  evidence 
we  have  collected  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  ants  as  destroyers  of  the  cot- 
ton-worm ;  but  it  seems  hardly  sufficient  to  warrant  us  in  unqualifiedly 
supporting  so  broad  a  theory.  We  can  safely  say,  though,  that  the  agency 
of  the  ants  is  one  of  the  prominent  factors  in  bringing  about  the  dry- 
weather  scarcity  or  wet- weather  abundance  of  the  cotton-worm.  The 
most  important  time  for  the  ants  to  be  pursuing  their  good  work  is  among 
the  early  broods  of  worms — in  May  and  June.  Every  worm  killed  at 
this  time  saves  the  cotton  fr6m  hundreds  later.  The  numbers  of  indi- 
viduals in  the  earlier  broods  are  small,  and  more  appreciable  work  can 
then  be  done.  Later  in  the  season  the  abundance  of  the  worms,  if  they 
have  been  protected  by  wet  weather  earlier,  is  so  marked  that  an  ordi- 
nary change  of  the  weather  has  small  influence  over  them. 

The  law,  then,  which  we  should  lay  down  for  the  influence  of  weather 
upon  the  cotton-worm,  taking  all  evidence  into  consideration,  would  be: 
A  mild  winter,  followed  by  a  rainy  May  and  June,  will  usually  bring  a 
destructive  "third  crop"  of  the  worms,  while  an  opposite  state  of  the 
weather  will  be  more  likely  to  bring  about  comparative  exemption. 


CHAPTEE  VI. 

NATURAL  ENEMIES  OF  THE  COTTON-WORM. 

Prior  to  any  remarks  upon  remedies,  comes,  naturally,  a  chapter  upon 
this  subject,  for  the  encouragement  of  the  natural  enemies  of  any  inju- 
rious insect  is  the  first  remedy  that  suggests  itself.  In  order  to  pursue 
this  subject  to  the  best  advantage  it  will  be  necessary  to  divide  it  into  two 
heads — vertebrate  and  invertebrate  enemies. 

VERTEBRATE  ENEMIES. 

Of  mammals  but  five  have  been  observed  to  devour  the  cotton- worm 
in  any  of  its  stages,  although,  without  doubt,  several  others  have  the 
habit.  These  are  three  domestic  and  two  wild — hogs,  dogs,  and  cats,  and 
coons  and  bats. 

Concerning  the  fondness  of  hogs  for  cotton-worms  almost  every 
planter  can  testify.  On  several  occasions,  when  early  broods  of  the  worm 
have  stripped  the  cotton  and  migrated  to  adjoining  fields,  pigs  have  been 
turned  into  the  road  and  have  devoured  enormous  numbers.  Mr.  E.  F. 
Henry,  of  Pickens  County,  Alabama,  states  that  the  hogs  become  per- 
fectly ravenous  for  the  worms,  and  if  allowed  to  remain  in  the  cotton- 
field  will  almost  entirely  destroy  the  plant  in  their  efforts  to  get  at  them. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Williams,  of  Mount  Meigs,  Ala.,  Bays:  "  Hogs  will  feed  and 
fatten  on  'the  worms."  Mr.  J.  S.  Hausberger,  of  Tionus,  Ala.,  says: 
"When  hogs  can  get  to  them  they  destroy  them  with  the  greatest  avidity." 
Mr.  P.  D.  Bowles,  of  Evergreen,  Ala.,  says:  "When  they  leave  the  field 
and  get  out  so  that  the  hogs  can  have  access  to  them,  they  will  feed 
upon  them."  Mr.  J.  W.  Gilinore,  of  Gaston,  Ala.,  says:  " Hogs  eat  them 
greedily."  Mr.  C.  B.  Eichardson,  of  Henderson,  Tex.,  says:  "In  1846 
and  1847,  after  stripping  the  cotton  of  leaves  and  small  bolls,  the  worms 
crawled  in  millions  through  the  fence  into  the  road,  and  my  hogs  prom- 
enaded the  road  eating  them."  Instances  might  be  multiplied,  but  it 
will  be  unnecessary. 

Many  instances  of  dogs  eating  the  worms  have  been  observed,  although 
it  is  doubtful  whether  any  dog  would  stoop  to  it  unless  on  the  verge  of 
starvation.  To  the  poor  dogs  of  the  freedmen,  however,  the  cotton- 
worms  are  a  boon  which  they  are  not  slow  to  appreciate.  The  domestic 
cats,  with  their  carnivorous  tastes,  will  eat  the  cotton- worms  until  they 
are  filled  to  repletion.  We  have  the  testimony  of  Mr.  E.  B.  Dunlap,  of 
Boligee,  Ala.,  as  to  coons  eating  the  worms.  It  is  probable  also  that 
both  skunks  and  opossums  do  some  amount  of  good  by  eating  the  worms. 

One  of  the  most  effective  mammalian  enemies  of  the  cotton- worm  is 
the  common  " leather- winged  bat"  (Vespertllio  Sp.).  This  animal  has 
often  been  observed  to  catch  the  moths  on  the  wing  at  night,  and  Mr. 

138 


DOMESTIC   FOWLS   VS.    COTTON-WORMS.  139 

Trelease  observed  many  bats  around  the  jujube  trees  on  which  the  moths 
were  collected  at  night,  repeatedly  darting  under  and  each  time  catch- 
ing a  moth.  It  is  hard  to  estimate  the  amount  of  good  which  is  accom- 
plished iu  this  way,  as  with  each  female  moth  is  usually  destroyed  some 
hundreds  of  embryo  worms. 

Our  list  of  birds  is  a  longer  one.  It  is  probable  that  the  planters  in 
general  do  not  sufficiently  appreciate  the  amount  of  good  which  birds 
as  a  class  do  for  them.  There  are  many  who  at  this  late  date  insist  that 
no  bird  will  touch  the  cotton- worm.  One  correspondent  has  the  follow- 
ing upon  this  point: 

I  have  spent  much  time  in  watching  this  point.  I  have  even  thrown  them  among 
chickens  and  they  refused  to  touch  them.  When  a  field  of  cotton  is  devoured,  and  the 
worms  start  to  travel,  moving  simultaneously  across  woodland,  road,  street,  and  dam, 
up  branches  and  ravines,  I  have  seen  them  exposed  to  birds,  flies,  hogs,  &c.,  but  have 
never  seen  anything  eat  them. 

Many  hold  this  opinion,  and  it  is  difficult  to  say  what  is  the  cause  of  it. 

The  use  of  domestic  fowls  has  always  been  urged  as  a  remedy  for  the 
cotton-worm,  and  undoubtedly  they  can  be  used  to  a  great  advantage. 
It  was  always  the  practice  of  Mr.  John  Townsend,  of  Saint  John's,  S.  C., 
a  most  successful  planter,  to  scatter  corn  over  the  fields  to  invite  the 
notice  of  wild  birds,  and  while  they  destroyed  the  worms  upon  the  top 
cotton  he  drove  his  flocks  of  turkeys  into  the  field  to  feed  upon  those 
upon  the  lower  branches.* 

Dr.  Chisholm  mentions  the  use  of  fowls  for  a  similar  purpose  in 
Guiana  as  long  ago  as  1801.  Mr.  Schwarz,  in  speaking  of  Mr.  J.  Dono- 
van, a  successful  planter  of  Kushla,  Ala.,  says : 

Mr.  Donovan  is  always  able  to  keep  the  worms  in  check  by  the  following  simple 
and  cheap  method:  He  drives  his  large  flock  of  turkeys  into  the  field,  and  if  the 
plants  are  too  high  a  boy  brings  the  worms  down  by  knocking  at  the  plants  with  a 
stick.  This  is  repeated  every  day,  and  this  remedy  has  so  far  proved  a  success.  Of 
course  it  can  only  be  applied  in  small  fields  which  are  near  the  house  and  where  the 
cotton  plants  are  not  of  large  size.  According  to  Mr.  Donovan,  the  chickens  are  very 
fond,  too,  of  the  cotton- worms,  but,  of  course,  cannot  reach  as  high  as  the  turkeys. 

Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  of  Montgomery,  Ala.,  makes  the  following  propo- 
sition : 

All  the  birds  feed  upon  the  moths ;  and  the  barn-yard  fowls,  even  the  geese,  eat  the 
worms  with  great  gusto.  And  in  this  connection  it  occurs  to  us  that  henneries  might 
be  built  at  proper  distances  and  made  a  paying  institution;  for  we  have  noticed  that 
all  around  the  barn-yard  the  cotton  is  saved  from  the  worm,  and  continues  to  grow 
and  develop  a  full  crop  for  several  acres,  or  as  far  out  as  the  hens  feed,  while  the 
balance  is  completely  riddled,  and  the  loss  at  times  reaches  one-half  the  crop.  This 
proposition  would  be  laughed  at  if  named  here,  while  the  planters  pay  $1.25  per  acre 
for  Paris  green,  and  if  the  season  be  raiuy  the  poison  fails  and  great  loss  results. 

We  will  here  enumerate  a  few  of  the  testimonials  on  the  poultry  ques- 
tion: 

Domestic  fowls  eat  them  voraciously.— [W.  W.  Hand,  Forkland,  Greene  County, 
Ala. 

*  Seabrook's  Memoir,  p.  44. 


140  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

Turkeys  and  chickens  feed  on  the  worms  and  chrysalis.  Poultry  near  houses  thin 
them  out  greatly. — [R.  H.  Powell,  Union  Springs,  Bullock  County,  Ala. 

Chickens,  turkeys,  and  almost  all  kinds  of  fowls  are  very  eager  after  them  in  this 
locality.— [J.  L.  Hausberger,  Tionus,  Bibb  County,  Alabama. 

Cotton  planted  near  farm-houses  has  been  greatly  protected  by  the  fowls  eating 
them. — [J.  D.  Johnston,  Sumterville,  Alabama. 

Immediately  around  the  cabin  where  there  is  poultry  and  turkeys,  the  cotton  will 
not  be  destroyed. — [H.  A.  Stollewerck,  Uniontown,  Perry  County,  Alabama. 

Turkeys  eat  them  eagerly,  and  a  cotton-field  near  a  dwelling  has  been  preserved  by 
the  turkeys.  Chickens  also  eat  them,  but  their  height  prevents  them  from  destroying 
them  as  effectually  as  the  turkeys. — A.  Jay,  Jayville,  Conecuh  County,  Alabama. 

Chickens,  turkeys,  and  geese  eat  them.— [F.  M.  Meekiu,  Morrison's  Mills,  Alachua 
County,  Florida. 

Chickens  are  very  destructive  to  them.  The  guinea-chicken  is  of  more  value,  as  it 
travels  farther.— [S.  P.  Odom,  Drayton,  Dooly  County,  Georgia. 

When  the  worms  are  numerous  the  fowls  and  birds  gather  to  the  cotton-fields  and 
remain  there,  daily  feeding  on  them.— [D.M.Hamilton,  Saint  Francisville,  West 
Feliciana  Parish,  Louisiana. 

The  common  fowls  will  eat  them.— [Jno.  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana  Parish, 
Louisiana. 

Having  occasion  to  move  my  fowls  during  the  summer  to  a  location  near  the  cotton 
fields  my  chickens  took  to  the  field  and  ate  so  many  worms  that  they  did  not  care  for 
other  kind  of  food,  and  seemed  to  do  well  on  them.  Turkeys  and  guinea-fowls  are 
very  fond  of  them. — [C.  F.  Sheirod,  Columbus,  Lowndes  County,  Mississippi. 

Ducks,  geese,  and  chickens,  most  small  birds,  and  especially  turkeys,  wild  and 
tame.— [C.  Welch,  Station  Creek,  Covington,  Mississippi. 

Chickens  and  turkeys  also  feed  on  them.  They  both  soon  learn  to  find  the  chrysalis. 
I  have  often  seen  chickens  jumping  up  for  them.  A  few  years  ago  I  called  to  see  a 
friend  in  an  adjoining  county  who  had  a  large  plantation,  and  found  his  cotton 
stripped  of  its  leaves,  except  a  ten  acre  field  near  his  house.  On  inquiry,  he  told  me 
that  his  turkeys  had  kept  the  worms  from  injuring  that  field.  It  was  then  the  third 
crop  of  worms. — [W.  Spillman,  Enterprise,  Clark  County,  Mississippi. 

Our  domestic  turkeys  are  the  greatest  enemies  of  the  worm. — [Geo.  F.  Webb,  Amite 
County,  Mississippi. 

I  saved  a  small  lot  of  cotton  near  the  residence  by  feeding  the  turkeys  in  it. — [C.  B. 
Richardson,  Henderson,  Rush  County,  Texas. 

From  these  multiplied  evidences  it  seems  clear,  notwithstanding  con- 
trary reports,  that  much  can  be  done  toward  the  extermination  of  the 
cotton- worm  with  the  aid  of  domestic  fowls  where  poisons  are  not  used ; 
this  latter  contingency,  of  course,  rendering  it  necessary  to  carefully 
isolate  the  fields  from  poultry.  Concerning  the  general  use  of  fowls  as 
insect-destroyers,  Prof.  Samuel  Aughey  has  the  following :  * 

It  is  also  probable  that  the  value  of  chickens  and  turkeys  for  the  general  destruc- 
tion of  insects  is  underestimated.  Those  who  have  carefully  examined  the  stomachs 
of  chickens  and  turkeys  taken  at  random  from  a  farm-yard  have  often  been  surprised 
at  the  number  of  insects  that  they  had  confiscated.  One  turkey  that  I  piirchased  in 
a  butcher-shop  in  Lincoln,  Nebr.,  in  October,  1874,  had  47  locusts  and  23  other  insects 
in  its  stomach.  One  that  I  dissected  in  October,  1873,  had  in  its  stomach  53  of  our 
common  insects.  When  domesticated  they  retain  the  eating  habits  of  their  wild  state 
and  take  every  insect  that  crosses  their  path.  I  have  rarely  examined  the  stomachs 
of  chickens  without  finding  some  insects.  The  exceptions  to  this  rule  have  been  gen- 

*  First  Annual  Report,  U.  S.  E.  C.  on  Rocky  Mountain  Locust,  p.  339. 


BIRDS    REPORTED    BY    CORRESPONDENTS.  141 

erally  those  that  have  been  kept  in  confinement.  The  farmer,  therefore,  who  makes 
provision  for  a  large  amount  of  poultry  on  his  lands,  accomplishes  a  double  purpose : 
His  profits  are  to  that  extent  increased,  and  a  large  number  of  insects  that  would 
damage  his  crops  are  destroyed. 

These  are  the  precise  sentiments  of  Doctor  Chisholm  when  he  said : 
A  prudent  economical  planter  will  increase  the  brood  of  every  species  of  domestic 
poultry,  particularly  turkeys,  for  this  has  a  tendency  to  diminish  the  brood  of  the 
chenille  in  a  very  great  degree,  while  profit  arises  from  the  augmentation  of  useful 
stock.  Turkeys  are  observed  to  have  a  remarkable  appetite  for  the  larvae  of  the  cot- 
ton-moth and  devour  prodigious  quantities  of  them. 

And  now  let  us  turn  from  the  consideration  of  domestic  birds  to  that 
of  wild  birds.  It  has  long  been  noticed  that  the  cotton  near  the  edge 
of  the  field  where  there  were  trees  and  bushes  was  not  eaten  by  the 
worms,  and  this  we  can  safely  ascribe  to  the  good  offices  of  the  birds. 
In  many  parts  of  the  South  the  amount  of  good  performed  by  these 
little  friends  of  the  planters  is  not  appreciated,  and  they  are  shot  indis- 
criminately by  the  ignorant  freedmen  and  others.  The  subject  as  to 
what  particular  species  destroy  the  worms  has  been  studied  but  little 
in  this  investigation,  and  we  are  obliged  to  rely  upon  the  random  reports 
of  correspondents.  From  these  we  have  gathered  the  following  partial 
list: 

1.  The  painted  bunting  or  nonpareil  (Cyanospiza  ciris,  Linn).    This 
bird  was  found  nesting  on  cotton  at  Macon  Station,  Ga.,  and  as,  accord- 
ing to  the  best  authorities,  its  food  is  to  a  great  extent  insects,  it  may 
safely  be  put  down  as  a  destroyer  of  the  cotton-worm. 

2.  The  indigo  bird  (Cyanospiza  cyanea,  Baird).     Observed  by  Mr. 
Trelease  to  destroy  the  cotton  worm. 

3.  The  mocking-bird  (Mimus  polyglottus,  Linn).    This  bird,  whose 
food  consists  principally  of  insects,  has  been  reported  from  all  ovev  the 
South  as  being  a  great  cotton-worm  eater. 

4.  The  bluebird  (Sialia  sialis,  Baird).    The  food  of  this  bird  also  con- 
sists principally  of  insects,  and  it  has  often  been  seen  to  destroy  the 
cotton -worm. 

5.  The  rice-bird,  or  bobolink,  or  reed  loiTd.-(DolicJionyx  oryzivorus, 
Swaiuson),  is  reported  by  Professor  Willet  to  feed  uppn  the  cotton-worm. 

G.  The  "yellow  oriole"  (Icterus  baltimore?)ba.s  been  seen  by  Mr.  G. 
W.  Smith- Vaniz,  of  Canton,  Miss.,  in  numbers,  devouring  the  cotton- 
worm. 

7.  The  "yellow-jacket"  (Chrysomitris  tristisf  Bonap).    This  is  a  pop- 
ular name  which  is  extremely  indefinite  and  cannot  be  found  among  the 
popular  names  adopted  by  modern  ornithologists.    It  may  refer  to  the 
common  yellow-bird  or  thistle  bird  or  American  goldfinch. 

8.  The  bee-martin  or  king-bird  (Tyrznnus  carolinensis,  Baird).    This 
bird,  which  feeds  almost  exclusively  on  winged  insects,  is  perhaps  the 
oftenest  quoted  as  a  cotton-worm  moth  destroyer  of  all  birds.    It  is, 
according  to  one  correspondent,  a  common  sight  to  see  them  darting 
about  a  field  towards  dusk,  catching  the  moths  on  the  wing  or  search- 
ing for  them  under  the  leaves. 


142  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

9.  The  barn-swallow  (Eirundo  horreorum,  Barton).    This  bird  also  has 
been  observed  to  catch  the  moth  on  the  wing. 

10.  The  night-hawk  or  bull-bat  (Chordeiles  Virginianus)  has  been 
often  seen  to  catch  adult  Aletia  on  the  wing  at  dusk. 

11.  Bed- wing  blackbird  (Agelaius  phcenicus,  Vieillot).    These  birds  de- 
stroy immense  numbers  of  the  cotton-worms. 

12.  Cow  blackbird  (Molothoris  pecoris,  Swainson). 

13.  Rain  crow  or  yellow-billed  cuckoo  (Coccygus  Americanus,  Bonap.). 
"The  rain  crow  feeds  voraciously  on  them,"  (W.  A.  Harris,  Isabella, 
Worth  County,  Georgia).    All  through  Georgia  and  Alabama  this  bird 
is  first  mentioned  jn  answer  to  the  question,  "  What  birds  feed  on  the 
cotton -worm?" 

14.  Loggerhead  or  Southern  shrike  (Colluris  ludovicianus,  Baird). 

15.  The  field  sparrow  (Spizella  fusilla). 

16.  The  chipping  sparrow  (Spizella  socialis). 

17.  The  song  sparrow  (Melospiza  melodia). 

18.  The  lesser  sap-sucker  (Picus  pubescens,  Linn.). 

19.  The  wild  turkey  (Helen  gris  gallopavo,  var.  gallopavo).    Concerning 
this  bird  Mr.  Trelease  says :     "  Wild  turkeys  frequent  Mr.  Melton's  plan- 
tation in  search  of  the  caterpillar,  and  the  plantation  is  covered  with 
their  tracks.     They  are  seen  here,  and  I  believe  they  have  been  seen 
catching  the  worms."    Mr.  P.  D.  Bowles  says:    "The  wild  turkey  has 
been  known  to  feed  upon  them  in  the  field  near  the  swamps,"  and  Mr. 
J.  K.  Gilmore  remarks,  "The  wild  turkey  is  particularly  fond  of  them." 

20.  The  quail  (Ortyx  Virginianus^  Bonap.)  feeds  upon  the  cotton- worm, 
according  to  Professor  Willet. 

21.  Partridge,  ruffed  grouse  or  pheasant  (Bonasa  umbellus,  var.  umbel- 
lus,  Stephens). 

22.  Prairie  chicken,  prairie  hen,  or  pinnated  grouse  (Cupidonia  cupido, 
var.  cupido,  Baird). 

The  great  majority  of  our  correspondents  replied  that  "all  birds"  or 
"all  insectivorous  birds"  eat  the  worms,  without  specifying  the  kind, 
and  the  list  is  made  up  of  the  commoner  species  which  are  incidentally 
mentioned,  and  may  therefore  be  accepted  as  containing  the  names  of 
those  birds  which  perhaps  do  the  most  good. 

The  good  will  with  which  the  native  sparrows  destroy  the  cotton-worm 
and  the  reported  efficacy  of  the  English  sparrow  in  ridding  the  Northern 
cities  of  the  canker  worm  have  led  many  Southern  planters  to  believe 
firmly  in  the  feasibility  and  advisability  of  introducing  this  latter  bird 
upon  the  Southern  plantations.  Many  letters  like  the  following  have 
been  received : 
Prof.  J.  H.  COMSTOCK: 

DEAR  Sin :  Several  planters  request  me  to  see  what  can  be  done  with  the  European 
sparrow  as  an  enemy  of  the  cotton-worm ;  I  therefore  write  to  see  if  you  consider  it 
advisable  to  send  me  several  pairs  of  the  birds  to  be  liberated  on  the  plantation  where 
I  now  am,  and  provided  with  nesting,  gourds,  &c.  Being  a  social  bird  and  fond  of 
living  in  cities  I  do  not  know  how  the  experiment  would  succeed,  nor  do  I  kr  ow  how 


EXPERIENCE    WITH    THE    ENGLISH    SPARROW.  143 

the  sparrow  would  use  the  oat  crop  in  the  spring.     I  shall  be  thankful  for  any  informa- 
tion as  to  this,  and  also  on  such  efforts  as  may  already  have  been  made  to  introduce 
the  sparrows  in  the  cotton-growing  districts. 
Very  truly  yours, 

W.  T . 

SELMA,  ALA.,  July  28,  1879. 

Here  is  another  of  the  same  drift : 

DEAU  W; :  *  *  *  The  first  field  has  an  orchard  on  one  side  and  forest  trees  on 
two  other  sides,  and  I  observe  numbers  of  yellow  orioles  (?)  everywhere  among  the 
cotton  very  busy  searching  the  stalks.  This  circumstance  is,  I  think,  explanatory  of 
the  paucity  of  the  caterpillars  in  that  field,  although  the  cotton  is  older  and  consider- 
ably larger  than  the  other,  and  the  worm  first  appeared  there.  I  am  of  the  opinion, 
furthermore,  that  we  have  here  the  key  to  the  method  of  warfare  that  is  to  be  waged 
against  the  destructive  pest — birds !  I  think  it  is  possible  that  the  English  sparrow 
may  be  the  only  thing  that  can  save  us  from  the  incalculable  losses  wrought  by  the 
worm,  and  I  hope  that  the  department  will  distribute  a  number  of  them  to  reliable 
agents  at  different  points  and  have  results  noted  and  made  public,  &c. 
Very  respectfully, 

GEORGE  W.  SMITH  VANIZ. 

CANTON  Miss,  July  26,  1879. 

Before  taking  the  course  outlined  by  these  gentlemen,  the  subject  needs 
to  be  carefully  looked  at  on  all  sides.  There  are,  in  the  first  place,  argu- 
ments against  the  good  to  be  accomplished  by  such  a  course,  and,  in  the 
next  place,  strong  evidences  of  probable  harm.  Prof.  F.  H.  King,  of 
Eiver  Falls,  Wis.,  in  a  letter  of  recent  date  has  the  following  on  this 
point : 

If  you  will  not  deem  it  presumptuous  in  me,  allow  me  to  suggest  that  it  is  barely 
possible  that  the  English  house  sparrow  will  not  thrive  in  the  warm  cotton  districts. 
This  caution  is  brought  to  mind  by  the  fact  that  the  sparrow  in  Europe  does  not  live 
in  Spain  or  Italy,  and,  by  what  appears  to  be  a  fact  in  this  country,  that  they  are 
spreading  westward  from  Boston,  New  York,  and  Philadelphia  much  faster  than  south- 
ward, and  further  by  the  fact  that  in  the  Northern  States  and  in  Europe  wherever 
they  take  up  their  abode  there  they  spend  the  winter. 

One  other  peculiarity  in  the  habits  of  this  bird  appears  to  me  to  argue  seriously 
against  its  general  usefulness  to  the  cotton-grower.  It  is  peculiarly  partial  to  cities, 
and  the  larger  the  city  the  better.  Fiom  these  haunts,  so  far  as  I  am  yet  able  to  learn, 
it  only  makes  occasional  flights  to  the  immediately  adjacent  country  when  food  at 
home  is  scanty. 

This  latter  point  has  been  verified  by  experience.  A  year  or  sp  since 
the  sparrows  were  introduced  in  Bibb  County,  Georgia,  with  a  view  of 
destroying  the  cotton- worms ;  but  they  almost  immediately  forsook  the 
plantations,  and  were  last  year  seen  nesting  about  a  church  in  the  city 
of  Macon. 

For  the  past  few  years  a  spirited  discussion  has  been  going  on  rela- 
tive to  the  merits  and  demerits  of  the  English  sparrow  in  the.  North, 
and,  in  spite  of  a  strong  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of  the 
sparrow,  the  general  tide  of  scientific  opinion  seems  to  be  setting  against 
them.  There  can  be  no  better  place  for  collecting  the  opinions  of  the 
leading  participants  in  this  discussion  than  here  in  answer  to  the  many 


144  EEPOET   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

demands  for  the  sparrows  from  the  South.  The  first  item  which  we  shall 
quote  is  from  The  Country,  being  a  report  of  a  discussion  on  the  bird 
by  the  Nuttall  Ornithological  Club,  of  Cambridge,  Mass. 

SPARROWS  BROUGHT  TO  JUDGMENT. 
[Communicated  officially  by  the  Club.] 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Nuttall  Ornithological  Club,  of  Cambridge,  Mass.,  h^pon  Jan- 
uary 28,  1878,  the  evening  was  devoted  to  a  discussion  of  the  English  or  house  spar- 
row in  America.  In  order  to  obtain  a  fair  expression  of  opinion  on  the  subject  from 
the  ornithologists  of  the  vicinity,  notice  of  the  proposed  consideration  of  the  subject 
was  sent  to  all  the  resident  members  of  the  Club,  and  several  of  the  corresponding 
members  were  invited  to  contribute.  In  view  of  the  great  practical  and  economic 
interest  of  the  subject  to  the  general  public,  the  secretary  of  the  Club  was  requested 
to  prepare  a  report  of  the  discussion  for  publication,  which  is  herewith  appended. 
The  result  of  the  canvass,  it  may  be  premised,  was  a  decision  most  decidedly  unfavor- 
able to  the  value  and  attractiveness  of  the  sparrow  in  the  United  States. 

The  president  of  the  Club,  Mr.  William  Bre\yster,  remarked  that  when  the  sparrows 
were  first  introduced  he  was  disposed  to  view  them  in  the  light  of  a  blessing.  He  rec- 
ollected, when  they  were  still  an  uncommon  sight  among  us,  that  he  noticed  a  small 
colony  nesting  in  a  martin-house  in  Medford.  The  numerous  apartments  in  the  box 
were  occupied  by  martins  and  sparrows  in  about  equal  numbers,  and  the  birds  were 
sitting  peaceably  together  on  the  ledge  or  carrying  in  food  to  their  young  or  sitting 
mates.  This,  he  stated,  was  the  only  observation  he  had  ever  made  tending  to  show 
these  birds  in  a  favorable  light. 

Since  their  permanent  establishment  in  this  locality  they  had  certainly  driven  away 
many  of  our  native  species,  though  he  did  not  say  that  this  result  is  as  yet  so  marked 
in  his  neighborhood  as  elsewhere,  where  the  sparrows  had  become  more  numerous.  In 
Washington,  in  1873,  he  saw  the  English  sparrow  in  the  city  parks  and  public  squares 
in  limited  numbers,  but  none  in  the  Smithsonian  grounds,  where  song  sparrows,  black 
snowbirds,  bluebirds,  and  a  few  other  species  abounded.  During  a  visit  to  Washing- 
ton the  present  winter  not  a  single  native  bird  was  observed  in  those  grounds.  The 
noisy  foreigners  had  taken  their  places,  and  nearly  every  tree  and  clump  of  bushes  re- 
sounded with  their  querulous,  disagreeable  chattering.  Mr.  Chas.  M.  Carpenter,  of 
Providence,  R.  I.,  had  informed  him  that  in  that  city  the  sparrows  were  fast  banishing 
the  home  varieties,  especially  waging  war  on  such  as  select  boxes  for  their  nesting- 
sites,  and  that  the  new-comer  was  regarded  there  as  an  unmitigated  nuisance.  As  for 
claims  for  the  bird  on  the  ground  of  having  exterminated  or  even  materially  diminished 
the  numbers  of  the  insects  that  prey  upon  the  shade  trees  in  Boston  or  vicinity,  the 
speaker  thought  we  should  be  extremely  careful  how  we  credit  them  with  what  may 
have  been  the  result  of  other  and  less  conspicuous  agencies.  Insects,  as  well  as  many 
other  organic  creatures,  are  well  known  to  pass  through  periodical  cycles  of  excessive 
abundance  and  comparative  scarcity.  Granting  that  in  Boston  the  Orgyia  pest  was 
much  abated  through  several  successive  years  after  the  sparrows  were  introduced  in  that 
city,  we  had  no  right  to  give  tho  sparrows  credit  for  that  occurrence.  Circumstances 
may  have  favored  the  sparrows.  Had  not  this  insect  just  passed  through  a  cycle  of 
comparative  scarcity  ?  If  the  sparrows  acted  to  any  great  extent  as  destroying  agents, 
having  once  fairly  obtained  the  upper  hand,  why  did  they  not  keep.these  insects  down? 
During  tho  past  summer  the  larvaj  of  tho  species  in  question  had  again  appeared  in 
formidable  swarms  on  Boston  Common  and  vicinity,  yet  tho  number  of  sparrows  had 
probably  quadrupled  every  year. 

Mr.  H.  A.  Purdie  observed  that  last  summer  ho  published,  in  the  Boston  Advertiser 
of  July  30,  a  short  article,  speaking  of  tho  hordes  of  caterpillars  that  had  then  been 
infesting  the  trees  of  the  common,  and  of  Bowdoiu  street ;  and  later,  their  cocoons 


NUTTALL  CLUB  ON  THE  ENGLISH  SPARROW.       145 

werr  to  be  seen  by  thousands  on  both  trees,  houses,  and  fences.  These  caterpillars 
were  the  larvaj  of  the  tussock  plumed  or  vaporer  moth,  the  Orgyla  leuco  stigma  of  ento- 
mologists. The  city  forester,  Mr.  Galvin,  soon  had  a  force  of  men  removing  the 
cocoons  and  killing  the  crawling  things,  for  the  sparrow  gave  both  a  wide  berth. 
The  ravages  of  these  pests  among  the  foliage  was  so  great  that  in  some  instances  whole 
trees  were  "chewed  up,"  although  each  tree  had  one  or  more  occupied  bird-boxes.  In. 
the  Advertiser  of  December  6  there  appeared  a  communication  headed  "  Justice  to 
the  Sparrow."  It  was,  in  part,  a  reply  to  the  July  article  above  referred  to.  This 
writer  claimed,  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Galvin  and  two  policemen,  that  the  cater- 
pillars had  been  wholly  restricted  to  a  nai-row  strip  north  of  the  path  leading  from 
Winter  to  Spruce  street,  or  to  about  one-tenth  of  the  common.  This  Mr.  Purdie  pos- 
itively denied.  Again,  the  writer  called  particular  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
November  rains,  soaking  the  cocoons,  rendered  yielding  and  pliable  these  envelopes, 
impervious  to  any  bird,  and  firmly  glued  to  the  trees  when  dry  ;  the  sparrows  were 
thus  enabled  to  devour  the  clusters  of  eggs  in  these  "receptacles,"  which  they  were 
seen  doing?"  Mr.  Purdie  replied  that  the  wingless  female  imago  of  Orgyia,  crawling 
from  the  inside  simply  to  the  outside  of  her  cocoon,  deposits  there  her  eggs,  covering 
them  with  a  frothy  matter,  which,  on  drying,  becomes  brittle.  The  eggs  are  thus 
easily  accessible  to  a  strong-beaked  bird  like  the  sparrow.  The  cocoons  everywhere 
conspicuous  are  not  "impervious,"  but  often  so  thin  and  slight  that  the  inclosed  in- 
sect can  be  seen  through  the  walls.  The  larva?  are  greatly  subject  to  the  attacks  of 
various  parasites,  and  entomologists  know  that  in  collecting  the  cocoons  in  winter  in 
order  to  destroy  them,  none  but  such  as  have  the  egg  masses  glued  upon  them  need 
be  taken,  as  all  others  contain  the  empty  male  chrysalis,  some  friendly  parasite,  or 
spiders  and  their  eggs.  Therefore,  it  was  these  foes  of  the  tussock  moth,  the  bene- 
ficial spiders,  that  the  sparrows  were  so  eagerly  hunting  after,  when  they  attacked 
the  "contents"  of  the  cocoons. 

As  to  our  native  birds,  Mr.  Purdie  was  confident  of  their  diminished  numbers  since 
the  introduction  of  the  foreign  sparrow.  Formerly  he  had  observed  about  fifty  species 
of  small  birds  on  and  about  the  public  garden  and  common  in  Boston  at  different  sea- 
sons  of  the  year,  and  from  fifteen  to  twenty  were  summer  residents,  raising  their  young 
in  the  midst  of  the  city.  Now,  these  birds  do  not  visit  the  city. 

Mr.  H.  D.  Minot  said  the  house-sparrows  were  quarrelsome  and  noisy.  He  had  seen 
them  drive  away  and  sometimes  even  kill  other  birds  and  eat  sound  leaf  and  fruit 
buds.  They  often  frequented  infested  trees,  especially  where  they  have  no  boxes, 
without  disturbing  the  worms.  Trees  could  better  be  protected  by  artificial  means. 
Last  summer  those  elms  about  Harvard  College  which  were  properly  tarred  but  not 
frequented  by  the  sparrows  were  almost  intact,  while  most  of  the  trees  outside,  not 
cared  for  except  by  these  birds,  were  largely  or  wholly  stripped  of  foliage.  As  shown 
in  Europe,  it  is  the  tendency  of  small  wild  birds,  if  not  persecuted,  to  draw  nearer  to 
man  and  civilization.  As  this  country  becomes  more  thickly  settled,  our  native  species 
would  have  iucreased  (not  decreased)  in  the  neighborhood  of  cities,  and  have  sup- 
plied our  needs  as  insect-destroyers,  had  we  not  checked  them  by  introducing  a  for- 
eign sparrow  which  was  now  spreading  far  and  wide  and  driving  native  birds  of  much 
greater  value  before  it.  As  regards  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Thomas  Brewer,  the  sparrows' 
chief  advocate,  he  stated  emphatically,  and  from  long  personal  observation,  first,  that 
the  indigenous  birds  on  Boston  Common  had  materially  decreased  within  five  years, 
both  in  numbers  and  variety,  robins  alone  yet  holding  their  own ;  second,  that  Mr. 
Galvin,  the  city  forester,  and  the  police  to  whom  Dr.  Brewer  had  referred,  were  not 
competent  witnesses  in  this  case;  and  third,  that,  as  to  the  green  appearance  of  the 
common  in  September,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  tree  may  be  defoliated  in 
June  or  July  and  well  clothed  again  in  autumn.  The  dirty  habits  of  the  sparrows, 
Mr.  Miuot  thought,  and  the  uusightliness  of  their  boxes,  greatly  counteracted  the 
pleasure  to  be  derived  from  all  their  supposed  virtues. 

Mr.  Theodore  Roosevelt,  jr.,  of  New  York,  said  that  some  years  ago  sparrows  were 
10  C  I 


146  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

apparently  of  service  in  New  York  City  in  destroying  canker-worms ;  but  last  year 
worms  were  very  abundant  in  the  gardens  of  that  city  and  not  interferred  with  by  the 
birds.  In  America  he  had  never  observed  them  molest  grain,  but  in  Egypt  he  had 
seen  them  feeding  in  the  fields  in  flocks  of  many  hundred,  and  on  shooting  them  their 
crops  were  found  to  contain  only  grain.  He  had  often  watched  them  assault  snow- 
birds, song  and  chipping  sparrows,  and  had  known  them  to  kill  a  yellow-billed  wood- 
pecker, actually  mobbing  it  to  death.  Other  birds,  as  purple  martins,  he  knew 
they  had  driven  away  by  occupying  their  boxes  very  early  in  the  spring.  This  im- 
migrant had  spread  into  the  surrounding  country,  and  at  West  Point,  on  the  Hud- 
son, land  owners  had  been  obliged  to  shoot  them,  as  they  destroyed  the  buds  of  fruit 
trees  and  drove  away  the  song  birds.  * 

Mr.  Ruthven  Deane  stated  that  he  had  repeatedly  seen  the  sparrows  attack  and  drive 
off  our  native  species.  These  instances  were  witnessed  both  on  Boston  Common  and 
in  gardens  in  Cambridge.  He  referred  to  one  instance  where  a  white-bellied  swallow 
returned  to  her  nest  in  a  martin-house  attached  to  the  trunk  of  an  elm ;  a  cockney 
sparrow  (which  had  not  previously  been  reared  in  the  box,  nor  had  any  of  his  ffcices- 
tors)  was  perched  upon  the  ridge-pole,  and  disputed  the  swallow's  right  by  attacking 
and  forcing  her  to  the  ground,  and  leaving  her  only  to  resume  his  position  on  the  ridge- 
pole. 

Mr.  Deane  also  read  the  following  letter,  which,  though  addressed  to  Dr.  Brewer, 
was  recently  sent  (apparently  as  an  "open  letter")  to  Mr.  Deane  for  publication: 

"Dr.  T.  M.  BREWER: 

"DEAR  SIR:  I  want  to  ask  of  you  a  reply  to  these  facts,  in  regard  to  the  diet  of 
English  sparrows  habituated  to  our  climate,  which  I  have  with  the  greatest  care  ob- 
tained, and  with  no  prejudice,  of  course,  to  the  scientific  results :  Last  season  I  obtained 
39  individual  sparrows,  during  the  height  of  the  canker-worm  pest,  in  the  Jamaica 
Plain  district  (near  Boston) ;  about  an  equal  number  of  males  and  females.  These 
birds  had  been  allowed  to  gather  any  food  they  liked,  and  their  houses  were  placed  in 
the  midst  of  several  elms  infested  with  worms.  On  dissection  no  insect  or  worm,  whole 
or  in  part,  could  be  found  in  their  digestive  tract  even  with  the  glass,  but  grain,  oats, 
seeds,  and  gravel,  alone  gave  evidence,  distinct  in  these  cases,  of  a  granivorous  life. 
I  have  never,  as  yet,  met  with  a  like  series  of  experiments  on  your  part,  and  hence  I 
desire  to  have  a  brief  reason  for  your  assertions  to  the  contrary  in  different  papers. 
"  I  am,  very  respectfully, 

JOHN  DIXWELL,  M.  D. 

HOTEL  BOYLSTOX,  Boston,  January  3,  1878." 

Messrs.  C.  F.  Batchelder  and  Walter  Woodman  both  supported  Messrs.  Minot's  and 
Deane's  statements  as  to  the  decrease  of  many  singing-birds  in  Cambridge,  and  espe- 
cially that  of  the  house- wren,  a  most  valuable  insect-destroyer. 

Mr.  A.  M.  Frayer,  of  Watertown,  remarked  that  he  did  not  think  we  should  look 
into  the  city  to  see  what  we  are  to  expect  from  the  house-sparrow,  but  to  the  suburbs, 
where  it  is  yet  living  in  a  more  natural  condition.  This  last  summer  a  flock  of  about 
a  dozen  took  up  their  residence  near  a  small  patch  of  standing  rye,  and  before  it  was 
time  to  harvest  the  grain  the  gourmands  had  eaten  every  kernel  and  beaten  down  the 
straw.  On  Long  Island,  New  York,  the  native  birds,  for  the  last  five  years,  had  been 
steadily  decreasing  as  the  alien  increased. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Allen  stated  that,  although  he  had  hitherto  purposely  kept  out  of  the  spar- 
row controversy,  it  had  not  been  from  any  lack  of  interest  in  the  subject.  He  had 
believed  the  subject  to  be  not  so  one-sided  as  many  have  assumed;  that  the  sparrows 

•Plenty  of  confirmatory  evidence  is  observable  in  New  York  City  to-day,  although 
here  no  public  provision  is  made  for  feeding  the  sparrows.  In  City  Hall  Square,  par- 
ticularly, the  cocoons  of  Orgyia  moths  are  to  be  seen  in  large  quantities  on  both  elms 
and  maples.  In  many  cases  the  bird-boxes  in  these  trees  at  present  inhabited  by  the 
sparrows  are  almost  completely  covered  by  a  crowded  thatch  of  chrysalids. — ED. 


OPINION    OF    THE    NUTTALL    CLUB.  147 

are  not  quite  such  unmitigated  pests  as  they  have  sometimes  heen  represented  to  be, 
nor,  on  the  other  hand,  quite  so  unalloyed  a  benefaction  as  some  have  claimed.  While 
they  have  some  good  points,  they  are  certainly  not  lacking  in  had  ones.  Before 
taking  sides  on  a  question  of  so  much  importance,  he  had  waited  for  the  accumulation 
of  evidence — in  other  words,  till  the  sparrows  had  so  increased  in  numbers  that  our 
knowledge  of  their  proclivities  would  enable  us  to  judge  of  the  results  of  an  experi- 
ment that  at  first  seemed  praiseworthy.  The  sparrows,  it  is  true,  came  to  us  with  a 
bad  name,  and  many  a  wise  one  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  had  warned  us  of  the 
consequences  of  what  they  termed  an  act  of  folly. 

The  introduction  of  the  European  house-sparrow  to  the  principal  cities  of  the  Atlan- 
tic seaboard  and  to  many  of  those  of  the  interior,  he  continued,  has  been  made  mainly 
within  the  last  ten  or  twelve  years  ;  but  in  consequence  of  their  remarkable  power  of 
reproduction  and  their  pampered  lives,  protected,  as  they  have  been,  from  all  natural 
checks  upon  their  increase,  and  at  the  same  time  provided  with  an  abundance  of  food 
and  innumerable  resting  sites,  they  have  already  so  multiplied  in  many  places  that 
they  have  begun  to  spread  into  the  adjoining  rural  districts.  While  to  some  degree 
annoying,  even  in  the  cities,  by  their  harsh  cries  and  ceaseless  clamor,  and  other  not 
wholly  agreeable  acts,  the  report  comes  to  us  that  they  are  already  rendering  them- 
selves obnoxious  to  the  farmer  and  horticulturist  by  their  attacks  upon  the  crops. 
An  equally  serious  charge  against  them  is  their  influence  upon  our  native  birds,  for 
the  increase  of  the  sparrow  is  everywhere  coincident  with  a  decrease  of  our  far  more 
desirable  native  species. 

Having  had  his  attention  called  of  late  rather  strongly  to  the  subject,  Mr.  Allen  had 
been  led  not  only  to  collect  his  own  observations  on  this  subject,  but  to  seek  informa- 
tion from  localities  beyond  his  own  immediate  vicinity ;  and  on  weighing  the  evidence, 
had  been  rather  surprised  at  the  preponderance  of  facts  unfavorable  to  the  sparrows. 
As  regards  the  favorable  side  of  the  case,  he  stated  that  he  had  no  doubt  that  the 
sparrows,  in  no  small  degree,  held  in  check  the  canker-worms  and  other  obnoxious 
caterpillars.  During  the  last  three  or  four  years  he  had  had  very  favorable  opportu- 
nities for  observations.  During  this  period  the  elms  in  the  vicinity  of  his  house  have 
had  no  other  protection  than  that  afforded  by  the  English  sparrows,  yet  they  have 
retained  their  foliage  in  excellent  condition,  while  other  trees  not  many  yards  distant, 
unfrequented  by  the  sparrows,  and  also  in  no  way  protected,  have.been  almost  wholly 
stripped  of  their  leaves.  The  canker-worm  moths  laid  their  eggs  freely  on  all  the 
trees  here  referred  to,  and  the  eggs  hatched  on  all  in  apparently  equal  abundance ; 
bnt  when  the  sparrows  were  in  sufficient  force,  they  checked  their  ravages  before 
they  had  time  to  do  serious  harm.  He  had  observed  the  sparrows,  day  after  day,  dur- 
ing the  canker-worm  season  hunting  among  the  leaves  for  caterpillars  and  seizing 
them.  So  far  as  regards  this  part  of  the  subject,  there  is  neither  influence  nor  guess- 
work, but  visual  proof.  The  destruction  of  a  few  caterpillars,  however,  he  regards  aa 
almost  the  sole  good  that  can  be  adduced  in  their  favor.  Their  presence  in  small 
numbers,  and  especially  in  winter,  is  indeed  cheery  and  pleasant ;  but  when  in  force 
their  harsh  chatter  becomes  a  positive  nuisance,  and  even  in  summer  renders  the  notes 
of  other  birds  singing  in  the  neighboring  trees  almost  undistinguishable. 

In  regard  to  the  unfavorable  side  of  the  score  the  list  of  charges  is  a  long  one,  and 
the  greater  part  are  too  well  attested  to  admit  of  reasonable  doubt.  First  in  the  list 
is  their  unfavorable  influence  iipou  our  native  birds.  Ordinarily,  so  far  as  his  obser- 
vations extend,  he  believed  they  were  not  violently  aggressive,  but  readily  became  so 
whenever  there  was  a  conflict  of  interest,  and  occasionally  without  provocation.  The 
little  chipping  sparrows  commonly  associated  with  them  on  terms  of  intimacy  and 
harmony,  and  rarely  had  he  seen  them  pursue  or  attack  other  birds  when  meeting  with 
them  at  a  distance  from  their  own  domiciles.  But  that  they  do,  by  their  abundance 
and  petulance,  tend  to  crowd  out  and  supplant  our  native  birds  seems  nearly  unquestion- 
able, since  the  latter  disappear  whenever  the  house  sparrows  become  abundant.  Upon 
such  species  as  have  a  preference  for  nesting-sites  similar  to  their  own,  they  do  extxrt, 


148  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

however,  a  most  positive  influence.  These  are  bluebirds,  -white-bellied  swallows, 
purple  martins,  and  wrens — birds  of  attractive  ways,  agreeable  notes,  and  highly  in- 
sectivorous in  their  diet.  When  the  sparrows  were  first  introduced  in  Cambridge, 
probably  at  least  a  dozen  bird-houses  were  put  up  to  each  pair  of  sparrows.  The 
result  was  that  the  native  species  just  mentioned  found  abundant  nesting-places,  and 
at  once  became  more  abundant  than  formerly.  As  the  sparrows  rapidly  increased, 
they  very  naturally  possessed  themselves  of  the  bird-boxes  and  forced  their  former 
occupants  elsewhere.  He  cited  the  following  instances  as  having  fallen  under  hia 
observation : 

Three  years  ago  no  less  than  three  pairs  of  wrens  and  as  many  pairs  each  of  blue- 
birds aud  white-bellied  swallows  raised  their  young  in  boxes  in  sight  of  his  windows. 
The  following  year  one-half  disappeared,  and  last  year  not  one  of  these  nine  pairs  of 
native  birds  had  a  representative  left  within  this  small  area.  Not  that  all  the  boxes 
were  occupied  by  the  sparrows,  but  they  claimed  possession  of  all  and  by  force  of 
numbers  retained  them.  In  most  cases  the  former  occupants,  finding  their  homes 
already  in  the  possession  of  their  enemies,  appeared  to  make  no  struggle  to  regain 
them,  a  reconnaissance  of  the  field  apparently  satisfying  them  of  the  hopelessness  of 
any  such  attempt ;  in  other  cases  they  were  not  given  up  without  long  and  hard-fought 
battles.  On  inquiry  he  found  that  similar  incidents  have  been  observed  in  neighbor- 
ing parts  of  Cambridge.  Besides  this,  instances  of  uncalled-for  aggression  had  come 
to  his  notice,  one  of  which  he  had  himself  observed.  Last  year  a  colony  of  sparrows, 
not  content  with  three  times  as  many  boxes  as  they  had  use  for,  to  gain  possession  of 
whirh  they  had  dispossessed  wrens  and  swallows,  attacked  a  pair  of  robins  that  very 
unwisely,  as  it  proved,  had  chosen  a  nesting-site  in  an  elm  close  to  this  pugnacious 
colony,  by  which  they  were  so  persistently  harassed  that  they  had  to  abandon  their 
completed  nest  and  its,  to  them,  precious  contents. 

In  this  connection  Mr.  Allen  read  a-  communication  from  Mr.  Robert  Ridgway,  of 
"Washington,  D.  C.,  in  relation  to  the  effect  of  the  sparrows  upon  tho  native  birds,  in 
•which  Mr.  Ridgway  stated  that  since  the  appearance  of  the  house  sparrow  in  that 
city,  the  native  species,  including  suchbright-colored  and  musical  birds  as  the  Balti- 
more and  orchard  oriole  and  blue-birds,  as  well  as  purple  martins,  cat-birds,  song- 
sparrows,  &c.,  have  nearly  abandoned  the  city.  Before  the  sparrows  came  these  and 
others  were  abundant  in  all  the  public  parks  and  reservations.  The  sparrows  have 
now  spread  in  strong  force  throughout  the  city,  and  the  native  birds  have  either  in 
part  or  entirely  disappeared,  the  sparrows  abounding  to  the  "  almost  utter  exclusion 
of  other  birds."  These  he  gives  as  the  facts  of  the  case,  without  claiming  that  the 
increase  of  tho  sparrows  and  the  decrease  of  the  indigenous  species  held  tho  relation 
of  "cause  and  effect."  The  native  species,  he  claims,  combine  all  the  praiseworthy 
traits  possessed  by  tho  sparrows  with  either  beauty  of  plumage  or  the  gift  of  song, 
neither  of  which  qualities  belong  to  the  introduced  birds.  He  regards  the  latter  as 
only  exceptionally  insectivorous,  while  the  species  they  supplant  are  prominently  so. 
He  also  alludes  to  the  well-known  habits  of  the  sparrows  as  street  birds,  from  which 
source  they  derive  a  large  share  of  their  food. 

Mr.  Allen  further  stated  that  every  ornithologist  of  note  throughout  the  country 
•who  has  expressed  himself  upon  the  subject  (and  nearly  all  have  done  so)  has,  almost 
without  exception,  declared  against  the  sparrow.  Not  a  few  of  them  consider  their 
rapid  increase  an  alarming  evil,  that  will  soon  call  for  legislative  action  to  hold  it  in 
check.  Their  influence  upon  the  native  species  is  on  all  sides  spoken  of  as  deleterious. 
They  are  aggressive  and  pugnacious  by  nature,  and,  if  not  by  actual  aciacks  upon 
the  native  birds,  will  crowd  them  out  by  their  excessive  numbers.  The  introduced 
sparrow  is  to  a  greater  extent  a  granivorous  feeder  than  most  of  our  own  species  of  the 
same  family,  and  subsists  upon  an  insect  diet  only  exceptionally,  and  not  as  a  rule,  as 
is  the  case  with  many  of  the  species  their  unchecked  increase  will  most  surely  sup- 
plant. They  were,  however,  ostensibly  introduced  for  tho  purpose  of  keeping  in  check 
certain  insect  pests,  and  in  some  cases  seem  to  have  been  of  service  in  this  regard. 


OPINION   OF    THE    NUTTALL    CLUB.  149 

Hitherto  by  far  the  worst  of  these  in  Eastern  Massachusetts  has  been  the  canker-worm. 
The  sparrows,  under  certain  conditions,  feed  freely  upon  these,  both  in  the  imago  and 
larva  states,  and  if  numerous  enough  would  doubtless  do  imich  to  keep  them  in  check. 
But  to  do  this,  several  pairs  of  sparrows  are  evidently  necessary  for  the  protection  of 
each  tree  subject  to  the  attacks  of  the  canker-worms. 

In  order  to  have  the  sparrows  effective,  they  must  have  their  homes  in  the  trees ; 
hence  it  will  be  necessary  to  provide  two  or  three  bird-houses  for  each  individual  tree 
of  the  millions  of  elm,  apple,  and  other  trees  that  the  canker-worms  infest,  and  to  wait 
for  the  sparrows  to  multiply  so  as  to  occupy  tharn  before  we  can  hope  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  trees  by  the  sparrows. 

With  the  known  predilection  of  sparrows  for  the  buds  of  fruit-trees  and  for  ripening 
grain,  to  say  nothing  of  the  other  depredations  they  are  known  to  commit,  respecting 
which  we  have  testimony  from  the  Old  World  as  well  as  at  home,  shall  we  not  have 
burdened  ourselves  with  a  tenfold  worse  pest  than  the  canker-worms  prove  to  be  ? 
But  every  one  who  has  given  attention  to  the  subject  knows  that  we  do  not  need  the 
help  of  the  sparrows  for  the  suppression  of  the  canker-worms.  There  are  various 
effective  devices  for  the  prevention  of  the  descent  of  the  female  moth,  and  for  her  de- 
struction before  reaching  those  portions  of  the  tree  she  seeks  for  oviposition.  What 
we  need  is  an  enlightened  public  opinion  that  shall  enforce,  by  statutory  enactments, 
the  protection  of  our  fruit  and  shade  trees  by  already  well-known  available  means, 
making  it  a  penal  offense  for  any  person  to  neglect  the  protection  of  any  trees  on  his 
premises  subject  to  the  attacks  of  the  canker-worms.  The  sparrows  are  hence  a  need- 
less and  deleterious  addition  to  our  fauna,  which  threatens  to  soon  prove  a  pest  it  may 
be  no  easy  task  to  eradicate.  Instead  of  being  pampered  and  protected,  they  should 
be,  if  not  at  once  expelled,  at  least  left  to  take  their  chances  in  the  struggle  for  ex- 
.istence  without  the  advantage  of  the  shelter  and  the  food  they  now  find  so  abundantly 
provided  for  them  by  unwise  human  foresight.  They  should  not  only  be  placed  on 
the  same  footing  as  the  native  species,  but  all  laws  for  their  protection  should  be  re- 
pealed, so  that  every  fruit-grower  or  farmer  who  finds  them  detrimental  to  his  inter- 
est can  protect  himself  by  summary  means,  if  he  chooses,  from  their  inroads  without 
the  risk  of  a  legal  prosecution. 

In  concluding  his  remarks,  Mr.  Allen  read,  as  further  contribution  to  the  subject 
under  discussion,  a  communication  from  Dr.  Charles  C.  Abbott,  of  Trenton,  N.  J., 
which  Dr.  Abbott  had  kindly  forwarded  to  be  read  before  the  Nuttall  Club.  Dr.  Abbott 
wrote : 

"The  house  sparrows  have  been  very  abundant  within  the  city  limits  of  Trenton 
for  about  ten  years ;  and  only  within  the  past  two  years  have  they  wandered  there- 
from, except  as  single  stragglers.  Even  now  they  are  not  permanent  residents  of  the 
rural  districts,  but  come  and  go  in  large  flocks,  apparently  on  foraging  expeditions. 
My  attention  has  frequently  been  called  to  their  depredations  committed  in  town  gar- 
dens ;  and  I  have  long  known  that  the  fruit  and  leaf  buds  of  peach,  plum,  cherry,  and 
pear  trees  were  eagerly  devoured  by  them  when  such  trees  were  growing  in  the  city. 
Friends  of  the  sparrow  claimed  that  it  arose  from  a  scarcity  of  food,  and  were  the 
birds  fed  with  crumbs  of  bread,  and  similar  scraps  thrown  from  kitchen-doors,  the 
trees  would  not  be  molested.  This,  however,  is  not  true,  for  even  after  being  gorged 
with  bread  and  rice  they  have  been  seen  to  pick  these  buds  from  the  trees  and  drag 
them  to  the  ground. 

"  I  have  several  times  watched  flocks  or  colonies  of  these  birds  on  my  own  farm, 
three  miles  from  the  city,  and  have  also  noticed  some  of  their  habits  as  a  street-fre- 
quenting bird,  and  have  the  following  serious  charges  to  make  against  them  : 

"First.  They  are  carnivorous ;  eagerly  destroying  and  devouring  the  eggs  and  newly- 
hatched  young  of  other  birds.  Instances  of  this  I  have  frequently  witnessed. 

"Secondly.  They  are  as  cruel  as  butcher-birds,  and  will  harass,  maim,  and  often  kill 
other  birds.  As  an  instance,  a  pair  of  sparrows  have  been  seen  to  attack,  while  in  its 
nest,  a  bluebird,  and  so  injure  it  that  it  could  not  escape  from  or  defend  itself  against 
subsequent  attacks  as  it  fluttered  from  the  nesting-place. 


150  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

"Thirdly.  Their  increase,  often  four  broods  in  a  year,  is  such  that,  if  they  do  not 
drive  off  other  and  more  desirable  species,  they  will  soon  crowd  them  out,  and  force 
our  songsters  to  quit  their  ancient  habitats  from  want  of  food. 

"Fourthly.  Their  decided  preference  for  fruit  and  leaf  buds  over  animal  food  (i.  e., 
insect  larvae)  renders  them  decidedly  a  pest  to  horticulturists. 

"Fifthly.  They  are  already,  often  in  large  flocks,  beginning  to  visit  our  grain-fields 
and  destroy  a  large  amount  of  wheat  and  rye.  Their  habits  in  the  grain-fields  are 
much  the  same  as  those  of  the  reed-birds  on  the  reeds.  They  cling  to  the  stalk  with 
all  the  agility  of  that  bird  and  strip  the  head  of  grain  of  nearly  every  kernel.  Just  as 
the  reed-birds  visit,  in  untold  millions,  the  rice  plantations,  and  destroy  so  much  of 
that  grain,  so,  before  long  will  the  coming  legions  of  sparrows  attack  our  wheat 
and  rye. 

"I  might  add  a  dozen  objections  other  than  these,  but  have  we  not  here  sufficient  to 
demonstrate  that  the  introduction  of  this  bird  was  the  introduction  of  a  pest?" 

At  the  close  of  the  discussion  a  vote  was  taken  on  the  question  of  whether  or  not,  in 
the  opinion  of  those  present,  the  further  increase  of  the  house  sparrows  in  this  country 
was  desirable.  The  result  was  a  unanimous  negative. 

H.  A.  PURDIE, 
Secretary  Nuttall  Ornithological  Club. 

And  now  for  an  article  on  the  other  side.  Dr.  H.  A.  Hagen,  profes- 
sor of  entomology  in  Harvard  University,  published  the  following  article 
in  the  American  Agriculturist  for  May,  1878 : 

The  decisions  of  the  "Nuttall  Club,"  of  which  a  report  is  given  in  No.  18  of  the  "N. 
Y.  Country,"  are  based  upon  observations  contradicting  in  several  points  the  older 
ones,  which  are  accepted  by  science,  in  the  most  decided  manner.  It  appears  by  the 
report  that  the  Club  either  had  no  knowledge  of  these  earlier  observations,  covering  a 
space  of  more  than  a  century,  and  sustained  by  ornithologists  of  well-known  reputa- 
tion, or  that  it  did  not  deem  it  worth  while  to  compare  its  own  observations  with 
earlier  ones,  which  ought  to  have  been  done  to  fulfill  the  well-known  demands  of 
science.  The  sparrow  literature  is  large,  and  opinions  during  the  past  century  have 
considerably  changed,  until  the  final  decision  is  most  decidedly  favorable  to  its  value. 

I  will  select  only  three  authors,  who  are  ornithologists,  each  one  an  authority  for 
the  economic  natural  history  of  his  time,  covering  a  space  of  one  hundred  years,  and 
showing  the  gradual  progress  of  the  opinion  as  to  the  value  of  the  sparrow. 

Mr.  T.  F.  Bock,  in  1784,  considered  the  sparrow  simply  as  a  nuisance,  so  injurious 
and  obnoxious  that  he  demanded  that  the  legislature  should  be  applied  to  for  its  de- 
struction; this  was  carried  out  several  times  with  such  pernicious  effect  that  the  spar- 
row had  to  be  introduced  again.  It  is  not  necessary  to  give  Mr.  Bock's  decisions,  as 
they  are  exactly  identical — the  carnivorous  and  murderous  habits  excepted— with 
those  of  the  Nuttall  Club  in  1878. 

Mr.  F.  M.  Bechstein,  in  1795,  says:  "The  food  of  the  sparrow,  insects  and  grain, 
indicates  him  to  be  beneficial  instead  of  injurious.  In  spring  he  visits  all  fruit-trees, 
collects  caterpillars  from  the  leaves  and  flowers,  and  kills  an  exceedingly  large  num- 
ber of  May-beetles  to  feed  his  young.  In  summer  he  lives  on  the  seeds  of  lettuce  and 
spinach,  on  young  pears,  cherries,  grapes,  and  berries.  In  the  fall  he  goes  into  the 
grain-field  and  oats  a  large  quantity  of  ripening  or  ripe  grain.  The  greatest  benefit 
he  confers  is  in  the  destruction  of  innumerable  noxious  insects,  May-beetles,  pea-gruba, 
caterpillars,  and  grasshoppers,  to  feed  his  young." 

The  sparrow  is  from  this  not  so  injurious  as  he  was  declared  to  be  in  former  times, 
and  upon  the  whole  is  certainly  more  beneficial  than  harmful.  I  know  towns  where 
sparrows  were  killed  as  injurious,  but  the  fruit-trees  there  never  had  fruit,  though 
other  towns  in  the  neighborhood  had  plenty  of  it.  The  cause  was  that  the  caterpil- 
lars were  not  killed  by  the  sparrows.  Through  loss  came  wisdom  ;  the  sparrows  were 
again  introduced,  and  it  was  found  more  profitable  to  protect  the  fruit-trees  and  vines 
against  their  depredation  by  simple  artificial  means. 


DE.  H.  A.  HAGEN  ON  THE  ENGLISH  SPARROW.  .    151 

Dr.  C.  W.  L.  Gloger,  in  1858,  says :  "  The  formerly  much-abused  sparrow  is  often  an 
impudent  fellow,  but  he  eats  insects  as  long  as  they  are  to  be  found.  With  some  pre- 
dilection he  collects  leaf-lice  from  the  buds  of  shrubs  and  trees  and  feeds  his  young 
with  caterpillars.  Certainly  the  sparrows  merits  well  the  few  cherries  and  grapes 
which  he  steals,  as  he  protects  so  many  other  fruits  which  he  leaves  untouched.  In 
former  times  people  were  short-sighted  enough  to  hunt  and  kill  the  sparrow ;  now 
opinion  has  changed.  All  intelligent  horticulturists  especially  will  never  persecute 
the  sparrow." 

Among  the  large  number  of  books  on  horticulture,  there  is  not  one  which  even  ex- 
cuses much  less  commends  its  destruction.  If  the  sparrows  were  injurious  they  would 
be  much  more  so  for  horticulturists  than  for  farmers.  The  stomach  of  the  sparrow 
in  fall  or  winter  is  rounded  with  seeds  of  weeds,  which  is  certainly  more  than  an 
equivalent  for  the  grain  stolen  in  summer. 

These  opinions  are  based  upon  observations  made  through  a  century  and  supported 
by  authors  of  acknowledged  reputation,  while  the  decisions  of  the  "Nuttall  Club"  are 
given  only  after  the  observations  of  a  few  years.  I  would  only  object  to  a  few  obser- 
vations given  in  the  report,  the  rest  being  sufficiently  answered  by  the  above  extracts. 

The  report  states  "  the  sparrows  to  be  carnivorous  birds,  eagerly  destroying  and 
devouring  eggs  and  newly-hatched  young  of  other  birds."  It  is  well  known  to  every 
naturalist  what  science  understands  by  the  term  "  carnivorous  birds,"  and  it  is  well 
known  that  sparrows  do  not  belong  to  them.  This  term  as  applied  to  the  sparrow  is 
decidedly  out  of  place  in  the  report  of  an  ornithological  club.  The  other  part  of  the 
quotation  reminds  me  of  a  quibble  a  century  old.  It  was  said  that  "  the  sparrow  in- 
vades the  nests  of  pigeons,  to  cut  open  the  crop  of  the  young  ones,  and  to  feed  upon 
the  grain  contained  in  them  when  Tie  needs  it."  Of  course  it  was  understood  that  he 
never  needed  it.  The  report  says  further,  "  the  decided  preference  for  fruits  and  leaf- 
buds  [the  last  observation  is  an  original  one  with  the  'Nuttall  Club']  renders  them 
decidedly  a  pest  to  horticulturists."  As  this  statement,  if  true,  would  be  alarming  for 
horticulturists,  I  should  be  very  glad  if  the  above  quoted  contradictory  observations 
of  Bechstein  and  Gloger  would  find  a  place  in  some  prominent  paper  or  magazine 
devoted  to  the  interests  of  horticulturists.  But  I  can  give  them  some  further  con- 
solation. It  is,  perhaps,  not  commonly  known  to  what  extent  the  horticulturists 
here  find  it  profitable  to  depend  upon  German  horticulturists.  In  1867,  wishing  to 
send  home  a  set  of  flower-seeds,  I  went  to  the  most  prominent  dealers,  stated  my  pur- 
pose, and  got  the  following  answer:  "We  import  all  our  seeds  from  Germany."  In 
1874, 1  was  asked  by  a  friend  to  send  the  seeds  of  the  American  native  pine-tree.  After 
going  around  in  Boston  without  success,  I  wrote  to  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Saint 
Louis,  and  had  from  all  the  same  answer.  Now,  when  American  dealers  find  it  profit- 
able to  import  seed  from  Germany,  and  the  German  dealers  find  it  profitable  to  export 
them,  it  is  rather  obvious  that  the  sparrows,  so  exceedingly  common  in  Germany  nur- 
sery-gardens, cannot  be  a  pest  there,  and  consequently  will  not  be  a  pest  here.  A 
book  commending  the  persecution  of  sparrows  would  at  this  day  be  considered  by 
intelligent  German  horticulturists  as  a  curiosity. 

The  argument  suggested  in  the  report  of  the  "  Club,"  that  the  help  of  the  sparrows 
is  not  needed  for  the  suppression  of  the  canker-worm,  because  various  effective  devices 
exist  for  the  protection  of  the  fruit  and  shade  trees,  decidedly  loses  its  value,  when 
summer  after  summer  we  have  seen  those  devices  applied  with  care,  and  in  spite  of 
these  the  foliage  was  'destroyed,  except  where  the  sparrows  were  present  in  sufficient 
number  to  check  it.  Prominence  has  always  been  given  to  the  alleged  fact  that  the 
sparrows  drive  off  indigenous  birds.  According  to  my  personal  observation  in  Cam- 
bridge, and  other  suburbs  of  Boston,  this  is  not  true.  When  I  arrived  here  in  18G7,  I 
was  surprised  by  the  scarcity  of  birds  in  such  a  largo  number  of  beautiful  gardens  and 
splendid  grounds.  The  following  spring  I  was  able  to  understand  why  birds  were  so  rare 
here,  as  I  saw  and  heard  morning  and  afternoon  around  and  very  near  to  the  museum, 
and  elsewhere,  the  shooting  of  every  kind  of  bird.  I  saw  boys  plundering  the  nests  of 


152          .  REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

the  most  valuable  insect-eaters,  robins  not  excepted,  and  I  also  saw  target-shooting  in 
the  open  field ;  the  target  fastened  to  large  trees  upon  which  were  birds'  nests.  Dur- 
ing recent  years  the  protection  of  sparrows  has  surely  saved  the  native  birds,  and  I 
have  never  seen  in  Cambridge  more  native  birds,  and  never  heard  more  beautiful  song- 
birds, than  in  the  summer  of  1877. 

Concerning  the  diminished  number  of  native  birds  in  the  Smithsonian  grounds  in 
Washington,  I  am  assured  that  one  of  the  foremost  American  ornithologists  denies  it 
to  be  the  fact.  After  all,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  by  the  rapid  increase  of  the 
cities  (Cambridge  has  now  more  than  twice  as  many  inhabitants  as  it  had  in  1867), 
and  with  the  incessant  disappearance  of  trees  and  shrubs,  some  kinds  of  birds  may 
prefer  to  go  to  more  secluded  places. 

The  argument  that  sparrows  drive  other  birds  out  of  the  bird-boxes  is  rather  a 
funny  one,  when  it  will  be  remembered  that  all  those  bird-boxes  were  placed  only  for 
the  sparrow.  I  think  every  bird  will. fight  for  its  home ;  nevertheless  I  observed,  in 
1877,  sparrows  driven  out  of  the  box  which  they  had  used  the  year  before  by  swal- 
lows, which  raised  their  young  safely  among  a  dozen  of  boxes  near  by  used  by  spar- 
rows. In  a  box  in  the  garden  at  the  corner  of  Broadway  and  Harvard  streets,  a  pair 
of  swallows  and  a  pair  of  sparrows  settled  last  year  together.  The  box  had  only  one 
entrance  through  which  both  had  to  pass,  and  as  there  were  two  glass  windows  in  the 
box,  both  nests  could  be  observed,  and  the  young  of  both  were  safely  raised.  If,  as  it 
seems  to  be  the  case,  that  native  birds  prefer  now  to  breed  in  bird-boxes,  which  they  did 
not  and  could  not  do  here  in  former  years,  it  would  be  simply  reasonable  to  place  more 
boxes  everywhere,  and,  as  is  done  in  Europe,  different  sizes  for  different  kinds  of  birds. 

Nobody  has  ever  contended  that  the  sparrow  is  a  beauty  or  a  charming  singer.  In- 
deed he  is  only  an  indefatigable  business  man,  minding  first  his  own  affairs,  as  is  not 
uncommon  among  business  men.  But  he  is  admirably  adapted  for  his  business,  which 
is  to  destroy  insects;  he  is  very  enduring,  staying  through  the  winter,  when  few 
other  insect-eating  birds  are  here  ;  he  begins  to  breed  much  earlier  and  breeds  much 
oftener  than  other  birds,  and  is,  therefore,  more  able  to  give  an  effective  help  in  the 
destruction  of  insects  and  weeds.  But  it  is  true  that  he  should  be  supported,  as  Mr. 
Allen  remarks  judiciously  in  the  report,  through  enforcing,  by  statutory  enactments, 
the  protection  of  the  fruit  and  shade  trees  by  all  available  means. 

As  no  naturalist  would  pretend  that  a  bird,  by  importation  into  a  foreign  but  simi- 
lar climate,  could  entirely  change  its  character  in  a  few  years,  the  sparrow  question 
will  probably  here  go  through  the  same,  though  briefer,  stages  of  opinion  as  in  Europe. 
I  consider  the  sparrow  to  be  a  most  valuable  addition  to  the  native  birds,  and  most 
certainly  beneficial  to  both  horticulturists  and  farmers. 

And  now,  to  return  once  more  to  the  other  side  of  the  question,  we 
will  quote  an  article  by  Dr.  Elliott  Coues,  one  of  our  greatest  ornitholo- 
gists, published  in  the  American  Naturalist,  August,  1878: 

"It  is  very  regretablo  that  the  'sparrow  question,' which  has  already  become  a 
matter  of  national  moment,  should  have  degenerated  into  such  a  miserable  personal 
controversy  between  the  sentimentalists  who  misrepresent  the  facts,  and  the  ornitholo- 
gists who  understand  them,  that  a  prudent  person,  whatever  his  views,  might  refrain 
from  having  anything  to  do  with  it.  But  it  is  with  me  a  matter  of  conscientious 
discharge  of  my  duty  to  place  the  facts  properly  before  the  people,  that  they  may  be 
informed  and  warned  in  time,  before  the  pest  shall  have  become  ineradicable.  I  do 
not  write  for  ornithologists ;  for,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  there  is  not  a  scientific 
ornithologist  in  America,  among  those  who  have  expressed  any  decided  opinion,  who 
are  in  favor  of  the  wretched  interlopers  which  we  have  so  thoughtlessly  introduced, 
and  played  with,  and  cuddled,  like  a  parcel  of  hysterical,  slate-pencil-eating  school- 
girls. I  have  held  a  tight  rein  on  this  controversy  from  the  first,  and  probably  know 
more  of  its  inside  history  than  any  other  person ;  and  I  am  in  a  position  to  affirm  that 
the  sneers,  the  invectives,  the  ridicule  and  abuse,  and  the  wild  assertions  of  the  leader 


PR.  ELLIOTT  COUES  ON  THE  ENGLISH  SR ARROW.     153 

or  leaders  of  the  pro-sparrow  faction,  result  from  a  frantic  despair  in  the  face  of  the 
facts  -which  ornithologists  coolly  adduce.  The  fact  that  the  sparrow  is  a  nuisance  in  a 
variety  of  ways,  that  it  does  not  do  any  appreciable  good,  that  it  does  a  very  obvious 
amount  of  damage,  that  it  harasses,  drives  off,  and  sometimes  destroys  useful  native 
birds,  and  that  it  has  no  place  in  the  natural  economy  of  this  country,  are  patent  to 
every  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  see  for  himself.  These  same  facts,  some  or  all, 
are  disagreeably  obvious  to  many  persons,  especially  agriculturists  whose  fields  and 
gardens  are  assailed.  All  of  these  same  facts  are  admitted  by  competent  ornithologists 
generally.  None  of  them  are  publicly  disputed,  so  far  as  I  know,  by  any  person  or 
persons  whose  authority  has  any  weight  in  a  question  of  this  kind. 

"  The  friends  of  the  sparrows  in  this  country  fall  in  the  following  categories :  First, 
those  who  know  nothing  and  care  nothing  particularly  about  them  except  that  they 
rather  like  the  pert  and  brusque  familiarity  of  the  birds — a  class  composed  chiefly  of 
children,  women,  and  old  fogies.  Secondly,  those  who  are  or  were  instrumental  in 
getting  the  birds  here,  and  who  are  interested,  either  in  reputation  or  in  pocket,  to 
keep  them  here.  Thirdly,  quasi-ornithologists  who  have  been  misled  into  hasty  ex- 
pressions of  opinion  to  which  they  feel  bound  to  stick.  Fourthly,  the  claquers  of  the 
last,  who  play  a  sort  of  '  Simon  says  up '  game.  Fifthly,  a  very  few  intelligent  and 
scientific  persons,  but  not  practical  nor  professional  ornithologists,  who  recognize  fully 
what  little  good  the  sparrow  undeniably  does,  and  shape  a  favorable  argument  mainly 
from  the  undisputed  advantages  which  result  from  a  just  and  proper  number  of 
the  sparrows  in  Europe. 

"Most  of  my  antagonists  in  this  matter — those  that  fall  in  the  first  four  categories 
above  named — are  of  course  not  worth  serious  attention,  for  they  either  have  no 
decided  opinions  of  any  sort,  or  else  they  are  not  open  to  instruction.  But  I  have  a 
particular  word  to  say  to  those  who  draw  an  honest  argument,  not  without  some  show 
of  reason,  from  the  state  of  things  in  Europe.  I  grant,  if  they  wish,  everything  they 
adduce,  from  Pr6vost  (who  by  the  way  is  a  great  tallyho!  for  the  members  of  the  third 
category  above)  to  the  last  investigator  of  the  contents  of  sparrows'  crops ;  and  I  simply 
reply  that  the  argument  does  not  apply  to  the  case  of  the  sparrow  in  America.  In  Europe 
these  birds  are  part  and  parcel  of  the  natural  fauna  of  the  country.  They  are  not,  as 
I  understand,  petted,  pampered,  and  sedulously  protected  from  their  natural  enemies 
as  they  are  here.  They  shift  for  themselves,  find  certain  sources  of  food  supply,  have 
a  fair  share  of  natural  enemies,  and  are  kept  within  due  bounds  of  multiplication  by 
natural  causes;  so  that  the  "balance  of  power,"  to  use  a  political  phrase,  adjusts 
itself.  In  short,  they  have  their  useful  part  to  play  and  they  play  it ;  they  have  their 
natural  checks,  and  their  increase  is  naturally  checked.  They  are  useful  birds ;  and 
when,  after  somewhat  excessive  multiplication,  from  any  cause,  they  have  been  inju- 
diciously exterminated  in  certain  districts,  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  restore  such 
districts  at  great  trouble  and  expense.  All  this,  I  believe,  is  admitted  on  all  hands. 

"But  the  principle  of  mutatis  mutandis  does  not  apply  to  the  sparrow  in  America. 
The  things  that  would  have  to  be  changed  to  make  the  sparrows  fit  here  cannot  be 
changed.  The  complement  of  our  air  fauna  was  made  up  without  these  birds.  There 
is  no  room  for  them ;  and  if  there  is  any  work  for  them,  time  has  shown  that  they 
slight  it  or  neglect  it  altogether.  The  only  way  to  make  the  sparrows  eat  the  worms 
they  were  imported  to  destroy,  and  which  they  seem  to  specially  dislike,  would  be  to 
starve  them  into  such  unpalatable  fare.  Instead  of  that,  we  sedulously  feed  them 
from  our  tables  till  they  are  grown  too  fat  and  la/y  to  think  of  worms.  And  if  we  did 
not  do  so,  it  would  be  useless  to  expect  them  to  take  to  a  diet  they  do  not  relish,  when 
the  streets  are  full  of  manure,  of  which  they  are  especially  fond,  and  the  trees  of  our 
orchards  are  full  of  fruit  blossoms,  and  the  gardens  are  full  of  small  fruit,  and  the  fields 
are  waving  with  grain,  all  these  things  being  the  natural  food  of  birds  of  the  sparrow 
tribe,  to  whom  an  insectivorous  diet  is  only  an  occasional  and  temporary  variation. 

"Again,  the  matter  of  the  limitless  multiplication  of  these  pestilent  famine-breeders 
presents  itself  very  differently  in  this  country.  A  single  female  has  been  known  to  lay 
over  thirty  eggs  in  a  season.  They  ordinarily  raise  three  or  four  broods  a  year,  and 


154  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

may  have  half  a  dozen  at  a  time.  They  are  safely  housed  from  their  natural  enemies; 
rather,  they  have  no  special  enemies  in  this  country,  and  such  enemies  as  their  exces- 
sive abundance  might  raise  up  against  them  have,  in  at  least  one  case,  been  summarily 
disposed  of,  as  in  the  silly  action  of  the  Bostonian  regarding  the  shrikes.  There  is 
thus  practically  no  check  upon  their  limitless  multiplication,  and  they  are  insidiously 
multiplying  at  a  rate  that  perhaps  few  suspect.  A  short  ten  years  ago  a  sparroAv  was 
something  of  a  sight  anywhere ;  now  the  millions  we  have  are  countless.  The  spar- 
rows have  played  mischief  enough  already,  I  know,  but  I  say  deliberately  that  this 
is  nothing  to  what  the  next  decade  or  two  will  witness  if  this  desperate  sparrow-mania 
goes  on.  "We  may  have  before  long  people  knocking  at  the  Congressional  gates  for  an 
appropriation  for  a  sparrow  commission,  like  the  Grasshopper  Commission  now  sitting, 
to  consider  if  there  be  any  available  relief  from  the  scourge.  When  the  sparrows  over- 
flow into  all  the  country — and  they  are  beginning  to  do  so  already — and  settle  in  hordes 
on  the  grain-fields,  a  good  many  will  doubtless  be  destroyed  by  the  birds  and  beasts 
of  prey,  but  it  may  then  be  too  late.  At  present,  an  occasional  stone  from  some  idle 
boy,  or  an  occasional  cat  on  the  woodshed,  are  all  the  sparrow  has  to  look  out  for. 

"  I  think  it  will  be  evident  that  the  argumcntum  ad  Europeam  cannot  logically  apply 
here.  I  have  dwelt  upon  it  because  it  is  the  only  show  of  reason  I  find  in  my  worthier 
opponents ;  yet  it  is  fallacious,  thoroughly  fallacious.  The  crude  observations  of  the 
less  worthy,  the  misrepresentations  and  tergiversations  of  interested  persons,  and  all 
vociferations  of  the  pyrgitomaniacs  are  wasted  in  a  case  like  this,  or  are  not  wasted 
only  in  so  far  as  they  serve  to  dress  up  a  melodramatic  spectacle,  at  seeing  which  well- 
informed  persons  usually  smile.  The  philopasserites  may  be  reminded  that  sentiment 
is  not  science,  the  present  being  a  question  of  applied  or  economic  science ;  that  satire, 
ridicule,  and  sophistry,  however  potent  in  the  political  or  theological  arena,  are  im- 
potent in  the  field  of  science. 

"  For  the  common  good  as  well  as  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  may  care  to  defend 
the  sparrows,  I  make  the  following  specifications  of  my  general  charge  against  these 
birds. 

"  1.  They  neglect  entirely,  or  perform  very  insufficiently,  the  business  they  were  im- 
ported to  do.  In  spite  of  some  good  service  at  one  season  of  the  year  in  a  few  par- 
ticular localities  against  some  particular  kinds  of  insects,  the  state  of  our  shade-trees 
remains  substantially  as  it  was  before  their  introduction.  Some  of  the  decrease  of 
noxious  insects  at  times  is  due  to  their  periodical  decrease,  with  which  the  sparrows 
have  nothing  to  do;  and  in  spite  of  assertions  to  the  contrary,  people  are  still  scraping 
trees  and  still  employing  the  usual  defenses  against  insects  in  precisely  those  places 
where  it  was  said  that  the  sparrows  had  done  the  business. 

"2.  They  attack,  harass,  fight  against,  dispossess,  drive  away,  and  sometimes  act- 
ually kill  various  of  our  native  birds  which  are  much  more  insectivorous  by  nature 
than  themselves,  and  which  might  do  us  better  service  if  they  were  equally  encouraged. 
This  fact  is  suppressed,  explained  away,  or  flatly  denied,  according  to  the  disingen- 
uousness,  the  aptitude  for  quibbling,  or  the  audacity  of  the  third  and  fourth  catego- 
ries of  persons  above  described.  It  is  attested,  however,  by  numberless  competent  and 
veracious  eye-witnesses. 

"  3.  They  commit  great  depredations  in  the  kitchen-garden,  the  orchard,  and  the 
grain-field.  We  are  only  as  yet  on  the  very  threshold  of  this  matter,  yet  how  obvious 
it  is.  And  what  may  be  expected,  when,  instead  of  a  few  hundred  million  sparrows, 
we  have  the  millions  of  millions  which  will  be  ours  in  a  few  years  if  we  persist  in 
this  folly. 

"4.  They  are  personally  obnoxious  and  unpleasant  to  many  persons.  For  myself,  'I 
rather  like  them  too ;  they  rather  amuse  and  interest  me  and  are  not  at  all  disagreeable, 
as  long  as  I  can  keep  their  disastrous  results  out  of  mind.  I  am  not  a  delicate  woman 
nor  yet  a  sqeamishman,  to  be  shocked  by  their  perpetual  antics  during  thespringand 
summer;  being  something  of  an  anatomist,  I  can  stand  it  without  embarrassment,  but 
all  are  not  so  constituted.  Neither  am  I  a  nervous  invalid,  to  be  fretted  and  annoyed 


OPINION   OF   DR.    ELLIOTT   COUES.  155 

into  positive  illness  by  the  incessant  turmoil  at  the  -window ;  but  others  are.  Nor  do 
I,  I  regret  to  say,  own  a  house  where  the  steps  and  window-sill  and  trellis- work  and 
lawn  are  so  befilthed  that  none  of  my  servants  will  stay  if  they  have  to  clean  up  after 
the  birds ;  others,  however,  are  in  such  case.  I  grant  that  this  is  all  a  matter  of  taste 
rather  than  of  science,  but  such  as  it  is,  it  is  largely  against  the  sparrow. 

"5.  They  have,  at  present,  practically  no  natural  enemies  nor  any  check  what- 
ever upon  limitless  increase.  This  would  bo  undesirable,  even  in  the  case  of  the 
most  desirable  birds ;  as  the  case  stands,  we  are  repeating  the  history  of  the  white  weed  and 
Hie  Norway  rat.* 

"  I  have  to  make  one  suggestion  and  to  offer  two  recommendations. 

"It  is  a  fact,  that  with  all  this  talk  and  countertalk  about  the/ood  of  the  sparrow, 
and  to  what  extent  it  may  feed  upon  insects  injurious  to  our  fruit  and  shade  trees, 
nobody  has  yet  made  the  experiments  obviously  necessary  to  determine  exactly  what 
the  birds  eat  in  the  country.  I  would,  therefore,  suggest  the  obvious  propriety  of 
finding  out  exactly,  in  the  only  proper  and  scientific  way,  instead  of  sawingthe  air  any 
longer  in  such  a  futile  way.  I  suggest  that,  at  the  height  of  the  insect  season,  at  the 
time  when  the  sparrows  should  be  eating  the  bugs,  if  they  ever  do,  in  some  places 
fairly  infested  with  bugs,  a  sufficient  number  of  sparrows  be  killed  and  examined  in 
respect  to  the  contents  of  their  crops.  Let  the  authorities  of  any  of  our  large  cities — 
preferably  Boston,  where  the  birds  are  said  to  have  done  so  much  good,  and  where  the 
sparrow  combination  talks  loudest— furnish  to  proper  persons,  say,  five  hundred  spar- 
rows, whose  stomachs  shall  be  examined  by  some  competent  botanist  and  entomologist 
together.  If  noxious  insects  should  be  found  to  form  the  greatest  portion,  or  even  any 
considerable  portion,  of  the  food  of  these  birds,  I  would  yield  the  case  so  far  as  this 
particular  count  is  concerned.  At  present  I  continue  to  believe  that  the  scraping  and 
other  occupation  of  the  city  forestering  Othellos  is  not  gone. 

"As  to  my  recommendation,  I  am  often  asked,  'Would  you  then  have  sparrows  ex- 
terminated?' While  I  am  not  prepared  to  advise  such  an  extreme  measure  as  this, 
I  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  prompt  and  stringent  measures  should  be  taken,  as  a 
matter  of  national  economy,  to  check  the  increase  of  the  birds.  We  have  enough  already. 
Without  unnecessary  cruelty  the  numbers  might  be  kept  down,  if  not  diminished,  by 
the  following  gradually  and  continually  operating  means : 

"I.  Let  the  birds  shift  for  themselves.— Turn  them  loose,  and  put  them  on  the  same 
footing  as  other  birds — that  is,  take  down  the  boxes  and  all  the  special  contrivances 
for  sheltering  and  petting  the  birds ;  stop  feeding  them ;  stop  supplying  them  with 
building  materials ;  let  them  take  care  of  themselves. 

"II.  Abolish  the  legal  penalties  for  killing  them. — The  birds  are  now  under  the  arm  of 
the  law,  which  protects  them  from  most  of  the  natural  vicissitudes  of  bird  life.  Let 
the  boys  kill  them  if  they  wish,  or  let  them  be  trapped  and  used  as  pigeons  or  glass 
balls  are  now  used  in  shooting-matches  among  sportsmen.  Vast  numbers  of  pigeons 
are  destroyed  in  this  way ;  there  are  even  '  sparrow  clubs '  in  various  cities,  which 
make  a  business  of  practicing  on  various  of  our  small  birds,  for  which  the  European 
sparrow  would  be  an  admirable  substitute,  answering  all  the  conditions  these  marks- 
men could  desire.  In  this  way  the  birds  might  even  be  made  a  source  of  some  little 
revenue,  instead  of  a  burden  and  a  pest ;  they  are  to  be  had  in  practically  unlimited 
numbers,  and  could  be  sold  by  the  city  to  such  persons  as  might  desire  to  use  them  for 
sporting  purposes. 

"  The  present  article  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  outline  of  the  important  subject. 
I  have  collected  a  voluminous  mass  of  testimony  during  the  past  two  or  three  years, 
which  I  intend  to  digest,  in  order  to  bring  the  whole  matter  in  its  true  light  on  per- 
manent record,  in  treating  of  the  species  in  the  '  Birds  of  the  Colorado  Valley,'  for  the 
plague  has  spread  even  to  that  remote  portion  of  our  much-besparrowetl  country." 

"  *  A  writer  in  the  London  Garden  says :  "It  may  be  remembered  that  in  one  of  the 
back  numbers  of  the  '  Garden'  I  mentioned  that  the  introduction  of  the  sparrows  would 
turn  out  to  be  a  great  mistake,  and  they  are  now  finding  this  out." 


156  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

The  firmest  upholder  of  the  sparrows,  and  the  man  who  has  written 
most  in  their  defense,  is  Dr.  Thomas  M.  Brewer,  of  Boston.  Owing  to 
the  fact  that  nearly  all  his  writings  upon  this  subject  are  controversial, 
and  that  in  no  one  of  them  which  we  have  seen  is  there  a  general  sum- 
ming up  of  the  pro-sparrow  arguments,  we  have  had  difficulty  in  select- 
ing from  them  one  to  present  to  our  readers.  We  have  finally  hit  upon 
his  correspondence  with  Mr.  Galvin,  city  forester  of  Boston,  as  in  it  he 
summarizes  his  main  points,  and  as  he  has  always  considered  Mr.  Gal- 
vin's  evidence  as  almost  conclusive.  It  is  from  the  Boston  Transcript 

for  April : 

"  BOSTON,  April  23,  1677. 

' '  DEAR  SIR  :  Having  taken  a  deep  interest  in  the  introduction  into  tliis  country  of  the 
house  sparrow  of  Europe,  and,  while  holding  my  own  convictions,  based  upon  careful  ob- 
servations as  to  the  value  of  this  bird,  and  as  to  the  truth  or  the  falsehood  of  the'  accu- 
sations made  against  them,  I  take  this  liberty  to  ask  you  a  few  questions.  I  do  this 
because  I  well  know  that  your  previous  knowledge  of  the  habits  of  this  species,  and 
your  daily  opportunities  of  a  closer  study  of  them  than  any  one  else  can  enjoy  since 
their  introduction  into  Boston,  give  to  your  evidence  an  indisputable  importance,  and 
that  your  conclusions  far  outweigh  the  crude,  hasty  opinions  of  prejudiced  persons  who 
have  never  had  the  opportunity  as  yourself,  and  whose  sweeping  assertions  have  no 
reliable  data  for  their  basis,  but  are,  therefore,  untrustworthy  and  worthless.  You 
Lave,  no  doubt,  seen  those  oft-repeated  accusations,  all  of  which  are  contrary  to  my  ex- 
perience. Desiring  to  know  whether  I  am  right  or  wrong  in  my  conclusions,  I  take 
the  liberty  of  appealing  to  you,  that  you  may  correct  me  if  I  am  wrong,  and  confirm 
me  wherever  I  may  be  right. 

"  Was  the  introduction  of  the  sparrow  attended  with  any  marked  effect  in  Boston 
in  the  destruction  of  insects  injurious  to  the  foliage  of  ornamental  trees  on  the  Common 
or  elsewhere  in  the  city  ? 

"Have  you  any  reason  to  believe  that  the  sparrow  is  still  beneficial  to  our  com- 
munity in  the  destruction  of  injurious  insects  ? 

"Have  you  ever  known  the  sparrow  to  attack  any  other  bird  or  contend  with  any 
species  except  in  defense  of  its  own  nest  or  box  ? 

"Have  you  noticed  any  decrease  in  the  number  of  our  native  birds  that  visit  our 
city  in  the  summer  season;  and,  if  so,  of  what  species;  and  do  you  attribute  any  de- 
crease to  known  adverse  action  of  the  sparrow  ? 

"  The  Daily  Advertiser  recently  asserted,  as  a  positive,  indisputable  fact,  that  the 
sparrow  shows  a  particular  animosity  against  the  robin  and  the  bluebird.  If  this 
be  true,  it  cannot  have  escaped  your  notice.  Have  you  witnessed  or  have  any  of  your 
men  reported  to  you  any  instances  of  such  animosity  ? 

"In  this  matter,  with  all  my  own  warmly-interested  sympathy  for  and  in  favor  of 
the  sparrow,  I  desire  a  full  and  candid  statement  of  your  convictions,  drawn  from  your 
own  observations,  whether  they  are  in  support  of  my  views  or  the  contrary. 
"  Yours,  very  sincerely, 

"T.  M.  BREWER. 

"JoiiN  GALVIN, 

"  City  Forester." 

"CITY  HALL,  Boston,  April  23,  1877. 

"DEAR  SIR:  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  answer  all  your  questions  frankly  and  fully. 
Yon  are  right  in  supposing  that  I  am  and  have  been  familiar  with  the  habits  of  the 
sparrow  even  before  their  introduction.  Since  their  coming  to  Boston  my  duties  and 
those  of  my  men  have  given  them  constant  opportunity  to  notice  what  they  do.  Their 
introduction  into  Boston  was  immediately  attended  with  great  benefit,  almost  beyond 
calculation.  The  trees  on  the  Common  were  infested  with  a  nasty  yellow  caterpillar, 
which  destroyed  the  leaves  and  buds  of  the  elms  and  other  trees,  and  these  insecte-in- 


PEOF.    AUGHEY    ON   THE    SPAKEOW   QUESTION.  157 

creased  very  rapidly  in  spite  of  all  ray  men  could  do  to  destroy  them.  And  at  the 
south  end  the  elm  trees  were  eaten  every  June  by  swarms  of  canker-worms.  Both  of 
these  pests  have  been  pretty  nearly  exterminated,  and  the  trees,  many  of  which  would 
otherwise  have  died,  have  been  saved. 

"The  sparrow  is  still  of  great  use;  but  for  it,  these  insects  would  return,  and  other 
pests  would  attack  the  trees.  Last  spring  (1876)  the  buds  of  many  of  the  larger  elms 
were  attacked  by  a  great  many  of  a  small  kind  of  lice.  The  sparrows  soon  found  them 
out  and  ate  them  greedily.  Consequently,  the  foliage,  instead  of  drying  up,  as  it  would 
have  done  but  for  the  sparrows,  was  never  finer.  My  men  could  do  nothing.  They 
had  no  wings  like  the  sparrow,  who  could  cling  to  the  buds  and  clean  them  one  by 
one.  Yet  for  all  this  good  the  sparrow  was  doing  there  were  some  so  prejudiced  against 
it  and  who  can  see  no  good,  but  only  harm,  in  anything  it  does,  who  raised  a  hue  and 
cry  that  the  sparrows  were  eating  the  buds !  Instead  of  that  they  were  eating  the 
bud-eater ;  but  instead  of  being  thanked  for  the  good  they  were  doing,  they  were  only 
abused.  I  believe  that  the  wages  of  all  my  men  would  not  compensate  Boston  for  the 
loss  of  the  sparrow. 

"In  answer  to  your  third  question,  I  say,  without  hesitation,  the  sparrow  does  not 
molest  or  interfere  with  any  other  bird.  It  does  not  trouble  the  robin  or  bluebird  or 
manifest  any  animosity  against  either.  All  summer  long  they  are  together,  and  it 
would  be  impossible  for  this  to  be  done  without  my  men  or  I  noticing  it,  yet  I  never 
witnessed  anything  of  the  kind. 

"I  have  not  noticed  any  decrease  in  the  number  of  birds;  on  the  contrary,  a  very 
marked  increase  of  various  kinds.  The  robins  were  more  numerous  on  the  Common 
last  summer  than  ever  before.  The  little  chip-sparrow  has  become  very  numerous,  and 
seems  to  bo  very  fond  of  the  sparrow,  often  feeding  on  the  same  bit  of  bread.  The 
small  martins  have  very  greatly  increased  in  numbers  on  account  of  the  number  of  boxes. 
These  they  have  taken  possession  of  whenever  they  want  one,  and  drive  the  sparrow 
away.  Before  the  sparrows  came  there  were  no  bluebirds  at  all ;  now  they  are  be- 
coming quite  common,  and  often  treat  the  sparrows  very  badly,  taking  away  their 
boxes  and  breaking  up  their  nests.  The  sparrows,  of  course,  show  fight,  but  the  blue- 
birds are  always  too  strong  for  them.  The  writer  in  the  Advertiser,  in  my  opinion,  is 
all  wrong. 

"I  am  all  in  favor  of  the  sparrows.  I  believe  that  they  do  no  harm,  but  a  great 
deal  of  good.  Thousands  of  dollars  would  not  pay  the  city  for  their  loss,  and  I  would 
be  very  sorry  to  see  anything  done  to  prejudice  people  against  them  or  permit  their 
destruction. 

"JOHN  GALVIN, 

"Superintendent. 

"Dr.  THOMAS  M.  BREWER." 

Prof.  Samuel  Aughey,  of  Liucoln,  Nebr.,  from  whom  we  have  already 
quoted,  a  gentleman  who  has  paid  great  attention  to  the  subject  of 
insectivorous  birds,  has  decided  opinions  on  the  sparrow  question.  The 
following  is  from  his  report  to  the  United  States  Entomological  Com- 
mission : 

"  Some  persons  have  advocated  the  introduction  of  English  sparrows  in  order  to 
mitigate  our  insect  plagues.  Such  a  policy,  it  appears  to  me,  would  be  highly  objec- 
tionable. The  moral  qualities,  or  what  is  near  akin  to  moral  qualities,  of  the  English 
sparrow  are  bad.  Where  I  have  seen  this  bird  in  America  it  has  gradually  driven  oft 
our  small  native  birds.  Around  Philadelphia,  where  it  has  now  monopolized  the 
ground,  I  last  year  renewed  its  acquaintance.  I  again  revisited  some  of  my  old  haunts 
where  in  early  life  I  studied  our  native  birds.  I  could  hardly  find  a  bluebird,  a  robin, 
or  native  sparrow  where  they  were  abundant  in  1858,  1859,  I860,  and  1861.  The  En- 
glish sparrow,  however,  greeted  me  everywhere.  It  was  the  opinion  of  all  that  I  con- 
sulted that  it  had  driven  off  the  native  birds.  Certainly  this,  to  say  the  least,  is 


158  KEPOET    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

unfortunate.  Many  kinds  of  birds  not  only  give  more  variety,  but  they  certainly 
destroy  insects  of  more  species  than  a  single  one.  If  we  protect  our  own  native  birds, 
and  especially  if  we  cultivate  groves  of  timber  where  they  can  find  shelter,  and  ban- 
ish hunting-dogs,  guns,  and  traps,  in  a  comparatively  few  years  the  balance  of  nature 
must  be  so  restored  that  insects  will  rapidly  decrease,  and  again  reach  the  normal 
number  that  prevailed  at  the  first  settlement  of  the  country.  Besides,  it  is  well  known 
that  the  English  sparrow  has  become  partially  naturalized  in  a  small  section  of 
Nebraska.  Some  years  ago,  as  I  have  learned  from  Hon.  J.  Sterling  Morton,  the 
English  sparrows  were  introduced  into  Nebraska  City,  and  have  multiplied  to  a  con- 
siderable extent,  but  the  number  of  species  of  insects  that  they  feed  on,  as  has  been 
anticipated,  has  been  found  to  be  small.  This,  of  course,  could  have  been  endured  if 
they  were  not  so  hostile  to  other  birds,  native  to  the  soil,  that  do  much  better. 

"Another  fact  concerning  these  sparrows,  not  well  known,  is  that  they  are  only 
partly  insectivorous ;  they  are  more  granivorous  than  insectivorous,  and  in  their  na- 
tive habitats  they  are  often  destroyed  because  of  their  destructive  raids  on  wheat  and 
other  grain  seeds.  They  have,  therefore,  far  less  claim  on  our  protection  and  care 
than  our  own  far  more  beautiful  and  more  highly  insectivorous  birds.  It  is  another 
illustration  of  the  fact  that  sometimes  we  go  abroad  for  that  which  we  have  in  greater 
perfection  at  home."  * 

From  these  representative  opinions  it  will  be  seen  that,  to  say  the  very 
least,  much  doubt  exists  as  to  the  real  character  of  the  English  sparrow. 
Under  existing  circumstances,  therefore,  it  will  pay  the  Southern  planters 
to  hesitate  long  before  introducing  into  their  midst  what  may  prove  to  be  a 
curse,  and  thus  taking  a  step  which  they  may  long  regret.  My  own  ad- 
vice is,  after  careful  consideration  of  the  subject,  cultivate  and  protect 
the  native  birds,  and  drop  all  thought  of  the  English  sparrow  for  the 
present.  Protect  the  native  insectivorous  birds,  by  putting  a  stop  to 
their  destruction  by  ignorant  individuals  and  by  birds  of  prey.  There 
are  two  birds  in  particular  which  should  always  be  killed  on  sight.  These 
are  the  blue-jay  and  the  cow-bird.  We  quote  from  Professor  Aughey 
concerning  these  two  bad  characters : 

Among  the  birds  most  hostile  to  birds  are  the  blue-jays.  They  rob  the  nests  of 
other  birds  of  their  eggs.  Wantonly  they  often  kill  even  the  young  and  throw  them 
out  of  the  nest.  The  increase  of  jays  is,  therefore,  incompatible  with  the  general  in- 
crease of  insectivorous  and  other  small  birds,  especially  of  those  that  nest  on  trees  and 
shrubs.  It  is  hard  for  the  naturalist  to  give  up  such  a  dandy  among  birds,  but,  as  he 
is  only  a  blackleg  in  fine  clothes,  the  feathered  tribes  are  healthier  and  safer  without 
Ma  society. 

Perhaps  no  bird  causes  such  wholesale  destruction  among  birds  as  the  cow-bird. 
Its  habit  of  laying  its  eggs  in  the  nests  of  other  birds,  one  only  in  a  nest,  and  leaving 
them  to  be  hatched  out  and  nourished  by  the  foster  parents,  to  the  destruction  of  their 
own  kind,  merits  banishment  and  death.  Even  crows  and  magpies  do  much  less 
harm  to  other  birds  than  jays  and  cow-birds. 

In  addition  to  doing  away  with  these  active  enemies  of  the  insect- 
ivorous birds,  the  latter  should  be  encouraged  in  every  possible  way  to 
nest  around  plantations.  For  the  martins,  native  sparrows,  and  others 
that  will  make  use  of  artificial  nesting  places,  boxes  should  be  provided, 
if  possible.  Children  should  be  taught  to  protect,  not  to  destroy  them, 

*  Any  person  desiring  to  study  the  subject  further  will  find  a  complete  bibliography 
of  the  sparrow  controversy  in  the  Bulletin  of  the  Hayden  Geological  and  Geographical 
Survey  of  the  Territories,  vol.  v,  No.  2,  compiled  by  Dr.  Elliott  Coues. 


LIST    OF    SOUTHEKN   BIEDS.  159 

and  a  general  sentiment  in  favor  of  birds  should  be  established.  Not  only 
would  the  cotton- worm  suffer,  but  a  good  step  will  have  been  taken 
towards  releasing  the  planter  from  the  tyranny  of  his  other  numerous 
insect  enemies. 

Among  reptiles,  several  varieties  of  lizzards  have  been  reported  by 
correspondents  as  eating  cotton-worms,  but  none  have  mentioned  names 
or  forwarded  specimens,  so  we  shall  have  to  do  without  specific  names. 
Land  turtles  are  also  reported  to  be  fond  of  the  worms,  and,  as  might 
naturally  be  expected,  the  common  toad  is  said  to  feast  upon  them. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  insectivorous  birds  occurring  in  the  cot- 
ton belt.  Those  nesiing  in  the  Southern  States,  and  which  consequently 
are  to  be  relied  upon  in  time  of  need,  are  marked  with  an  asterisk. 

For  this  list  the  department  is  indebted  to  Mr.  Robert  Ridgeway, 
ornithologist  to  the  Smithsonian  Institution : 

*NAUCLERUS  FURCATUS,  Vigors.  Sicallow-tailed  Haivtc.  Feeds  ex- 
tensively upon  grasshoppers. 

*ICTINIA  MISSISSIPPIENSIS,  Gray.  Mississippi  Kite.  Feeds  exten- 
sively upon  grasshoppers. 

*  COCCYGUS  AMERICANUS,  Bonap.    Yelloic -billed  CucJcoo,  or  Rain  Crow. 

*  COCCYGUS  ERYTHROPHTHALMUS,  Bonap.    Black-billed  Cuckoo. 

*  CAMPEPHILUS  PRINCIPALS,  Gray.    Ivory-Billed  Woodpecker. 

*  Picus  VILLOSUS,  Linn.    Hairy  Woodpecker. 

*  Picus  SCALARIS,  Wagler.     Texas  Sapsucker. 

*  Picus  BOREALIS,  Vieill.    Bed  Cockaded  Woodpecker. 

*  HYLOTOMUS  PILEATUS,  Baird.    Black  Woodpecker. 

*  CENTURUS  CAROLINUS,  Bonap.    Red-bellied  Woodpecker. 

*  MELANERPES  ERYTHROCEPHALUS,  Sw.    Red-Headed  Woodpecker. 

*  COLAPTES  AURATUS,  Swainson.     Yellow-shafted  Flicker. 

*  CHAETURA  PELASGIA,  Steph.    Chimney  Sicallow. 
*ANTROSTOMUS  CAROLINENSIS,  Gould.    Chuck-iciWs-widow. 
*ANTROSTOMUS  VOCIFERUS,  Bonap.     Whip-poor-will. 

*  CHORDEILES  POPETUE,  Baird.    Night  Hawk. 

*  MILVULUS  FORFICATUS,  Sw.    Scissor-tail.    Not  found  east  of  Louisi- 
ana. 

*  TYRANNUS  CAROLINENSIS,  Baird.    King  Bird  ;  Bee  Bird.    Destruc- 
tive to  bees. 

*  TYRANNUS  DOMINICENSIS,  Rich.     Gray  King  Bird. 

*  MYIARCHUS  CRINITUS,  Cab.     Great  Crested  Flycatcher. 

*  SAYORNIS  FUSCUS,  Baird.    Pewee. 

*  CONTOPUS  VIRENS,  Cab.     Wood  Pewee. 

*  EMPIDONAX  ACADICUS,  Baird.     Green-crested  Flycatclier. 

*  TURDUS  MUSTELINUS,  Gm.     Wood  Thrush. 
TURDUS  PALLASI,  Cab.    Hermit  Thrush. 
TURDUS  FUSCESCENS,  Stephens.     Wilson's  Thrush. 
TURDUS  SWAINSONII,  Cab.     Olive-backed  Thrush. 
TURDUS  ALICIAE,  Baird.     Gray-cheeked  Thrush. 


160  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

*  TURDUS  MIGRATORIUS,  Linn.    Robin.    Destructive  to  certain  small 
fruits. 

*  SIALIA  SIALIS,  Baird.    Blue  Bird. 

KEGULUS  CALENDULA,  Licht.    Ruby-crowned  Wren. 
BEGULUS  SATRAPA,  Licht.     Golden-crested  Wren. 
ANTHUS  LUDOVICIANUS,  Licht.    Tit-lark. 

*  MNIOTILTA  VARIA,  Vieill.    Black  and  white  Creeper. 
*PARULA  AMERICANA,  Bonap.    Blue  Yellow-bade. 

*  PROTONOTARIA  CITREA,  Baird.    Prothonotary  Warbler. 
*GEOTHLYPIS  TRICHAS,  Cab.    Maryland  Yellow-throat. 
GEOTHLYPIS  PHILADELPHIA,  Baird.    Mourning  Warbler. 
OPORORNIS.  AGILIS,  Baird.     Connecticut  Warbler. 

*  OPORORNIS  FORMOSUS,  Baird.    Kentucky  Warbler. 

*  ICTERIA  VIRIDIS,  Bonap.     Yellotc -breasted  Chat. 

*  HELMITHERUS  VERMIVORUS,  Bonap.     Worm-eating  Warbler. 
*HELMITHERUS  SWAINSONII,  Bonap.    Swainsorts  Warbler. 

*  HELMINTHOPHAGA  PINUS,  Baird.    Blue-winged  Yellow  Warbler. 
HELMINTHOPHAGA  CHRYSOPTERA,  Baird.    Golden-winged  Warbler. 

*  HELMINTHOPHAGA  BACHMANI,  Cab.    Bachman's  Warbler. 
HELMINTHOPHAGA  RUFICAPILLA,  Baird.    Nashville  Warbler. 
HELMINTHOPHAGA  CELATA,  Baird.     Orange-crowned  Warbler. 
HELMINTHOPHAGA  PEREGRINA,  Cab.    Tennessee  Warbler. 

*  SEIURUS  AUROCAPILLUS,  Sw.     Golden-crowned  Thrush. 
SEIURUS  NOVEBORACENSIS,  Nutt.     Water  Thrush. 

*  SEIURUS  LUDOVICIANUS,  Bonap.    Large-billed  Water  Thrush. 
DENDROICA  VIRENS,  Baird.    Black-throated  Green  Warbler. 
DENDROICA  CANADENSIS,  Baird.    Black-throated  Blue  Warbler. 
DENDROICA  CORONATA,  Gray.     Yellow-rump  Warbler. 
DENDROICA  BLACKBURNIAE,  Baird.    Blaclcburnian  Warbler. 
DENDROICA  CASTANEA,  Baird.    Bay-breasted  Warbler. 

*  DENDROICA  PINUS,  Baird.    Pine-creeping  Warbler. 
DENDROICA  PENNSYLVANIA,  Baird.     Chestnut-sided  Warbler. 

*  DENDROICA  CAERULEA,  Baird.    Blue  Warbler. 
DENDROICA  STRIATA,  Baird.    Blade  Poll  Warbler. 

*  DENDROICA  AESTIVA,  Baird.     Yellow  Warbler. 
DENDROICA  MACULOSA,  Baird.    Black  and  Yellow  Warbler. 
DENDROICA  KIRTLANDII,  Baird.    Kirtland's  Warbler. 
DENDROICA  TIGRINA,  Baird.     Cape  May  Warbler. 
DENDROICA  CARBONATA,  Baird.    Carbonated  Warbler. 
DENDROICA  PALMARUM,  Baird.    Yellow  Red  Poll. 

*  DENDROICA  SUPERCILIOSA,  Baird.     Yelloic-throated  Warbler. 

*  DENDROICA  DISCOLOR,  Baird.    Prairie  Warbler. 

*  MYIODIOCTES  MITRATUS,  Aud.    Hooded  Warbler. 
MYIODIOCTES  MINUTUS,  Baird.    Small-headed  Flycatcher. 
MYIODIOCTES  PUSILLUS,  Bonap.     Green  Blade-cap  Flycatcher. 
MYIODIOCTES  CANADENSIS,  Aud.    Canada  Flycatcher. 


LIST    OF    SOUTHEEN   BIRDS.  161 

*  SETOPHAGA  RUTICILLA,  Sw.    Redstart. 

*  PYRANGA  RUBRA,  Yieill.    Scarlet  Tanager» 

*  PYRANGA  AESTIVA,  Yieill.    Summer  Red  Bird. 

*  HIRUNDO  HORREORTJM,  Barton.    Barn  Swallow. 

*  HIRUNDO  LUNIFRONS,  Say.     Cliff  Swallow. 

*  HIRUNDO  BICOLOR,  Vieill.     White-bellied  Swallow. 

*  COTYLE  RIP  ARIA,  Boie.    Bank  Swalloic. 

*  COTYLE  SERRIPENNIS,  Bonap.    Rough-winged  Swallow. 

*  PROGNE  PURPUREA,  Boie.    Purple  Martin. 

*  AMPELIS  CEDRORUM,  Baird.    Cedar  Bird.   Feeds  also  on  cherries,  &c. 

*  COLLYRIO  LUDOVICIANUS,  Baird.    Loggerhead  Shrike. 

*  VIREO  OLIVACEUS,  Vieill.    Red-eyed  Flycatcher. 
VIERO  PHILADELPHICUS,  Cassiu.    Philadelphia  Vireo. 

*  VIERO  GILVUS,  Bouap.     Warbling  Flycatcher. 

*  VIREO  NOVEBORACENSIS,  Bonap.     White-eyed  Vireo. 

*  VIREO  SOLITARIUS,  Vieill.    Blue-headed  Flycatcher. 

*  VIREO  FLAVIFRONS,  Vieill.     Yellow-throated  Flycatcher. 

*  Mmus  POLYGLOTTUS,  Boie.    Mocking  Bird.    Feeds  also  upon  ber- 
ries and  other  small  fruit. 

*Mmus  CAROLINENSIS,  Gray.     Cat  Bird.    Feeds  also  upon  berries 
and  other  small  fruit. 

*  HARPORHYNCHUS  RUFUS,  Cab.    Brown  Thrush. 
*THRYOTHORUS- LUDOVICIANUS,  Bonap.     Great  Carolina  Wren. 
*THRYOTHORUS  BEWICKII,  Bonap.    Bewick's  Wren. 

*  CISTOTHORTTS  PALUSTRIS,  Cab.    Long-billed  Marsh  Wren. 

*  CISTOTHORUS  STELLARIS,  Cab.    SJiort-billed  Marsh  Wren. 

*  TROGLODYTES  AEDON,  Vieill.    House  Wren. 
TROGLODYTES  HYEMALIS,  Vieill.     Winter  Wren. 
CERTHIA  AMERICANA,  Bonap.    American  Creeper. 
SITTA  CAROLINENSIS,  Gmelin.     White-Bellied  Nuthatch. 
SITTA  CANADENSIS,  Linn.    Red-Bellied  Nuthatch. 
SITTA  PUSILLA,  Latham.    Brown-headed  Nuthatch. 
POLIOPTILA  CAERULEA,  Sclat.    Blue-gray  Gnatcatcher. 
LOPHOPHANES  BICOLOR,  Bonap.     Tufted  Titmouse. 
PARUS  CAROLINENSIS,  And.     Carolina  Titmouse. 

t*  CHRYSOMITRIS  TRISTIS,  Bonap.     Yellow  Bird. 

*  COTURNICULUS  PASSERiNUS,  Bonap.     Yettoic -winged  Sparrow. 

*  COTURNICULUS  HENSLOWI,  Bonap.    Hensloitfs  Bunting. 

*  AMMODRO:MUS  CAUDACUTUS,  Sw.    Sharp-tailed  Finch. 

*  A^OIODRO^IUS  IVIARITIMUS,  Sw.    Sea-side  Finch. 

*  SPIZELLA  PUSILLA,  Bonap.    Field  Sparrow. 

*  SPIZELLA  SOCIALIS,  Bonap.     Chipping  Sparrow. 

tThe  sparrow  tribe  (Fringillitla;)  are  chiefly  granivorous,  but  prey  upon  insects  to 
a  greater  or  less  extent  during  the  breeding  season.     Only  those  breeding  in  the  cotton 
States  are  included  in  this  list.— K.  R. 
11  C  I 


162  EEPOET   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

*  MELOSPIZA  MELODIA,  Baird.    Song  Sparrow. 

*  PEUCAEA  AESTIVALIS,  Cab.    Baclimari>s  Finch. 

*  EUSPIZA  AMERICANA,  Bonap.    Blade-throated  Bunting. 

*  GUIRACA  CAERULEA,  Sw.    Blue  Grosbeak. 

*  CYANOSPIZA  CIRIS,  Baird.    Painted  Bunting. 

*  CYANOSPIZA  CYANEA,  Baird.    Indigo  Bird. 

*  SPERMOPHILA  MORELETII,  Pucheran.    Little  Seedeater. 

*  PYRRHULOXIA  SINUATA,  Bonap.    Texas  Cardinal. 

*  CARDINALIS  VIRGINIANUS,  Bonap.    Red  Bird. 

*  PIPILO  ERYTHROPHTIIALMUS,  Vieill.     Ground  RoUn  ;  Towhee. 

*  AQELAIUS  PHOENICEUS.  Vieill.    Red-winged  Blacklird. 

*  STURNELLA  MAGNA,  Sw.    Meadow  Lark. 

*  ICTERUS  SPURIUS,  Bonap.    Orchard  Oriole.    Extremely  beneficial. 

*  ICTERUS  BALTIMORE,  Daudin.    Baltimore  Oriole.    Extremely  bene- 
ficial. 

*  QUISCALTTS  MACROURA,  Sw.    Long-tailed  Grakle. 

*  QUISCALUS  MAJOR,  Vieill.    Boat-tailed  Grakle. 

*  QUISCALUS  VERSICOLOR,  Vieill.     Crow  Blackbird. 

*  QUISCALUS  BARITUS,  Vieill.    Florida  Blackbird. 

*CORVUS  AMERICANUS,  Aud.  Common  Crow.  Great  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  whether  destructive  or  not,  but  unquestionably  chiefly 
insectiverous. 

*  var.  CORVUS  FLORIDANUS,  Baird.    Florida  Crow. 

*  CORVUS  OSSIFRAGUS,  Wilson.    Fish  Crow. 

*  CYANURA  CRISTATA,  Sw.    Blue  Jay.    Omnivorous  and  scarcely  ben- 
eficial. 

*  CYANOCITTA  FLORID  ANA,  Bonap.    Florida  Jay. 

*  ORTYX  VIRGINIANUS,  Bonap.    Partridge;  Quail.    Very  beneficial ; 
few  birds,  if  any,  more  so. 

INVERTEBRATE  ENEMIES. 

The  invertebrate  enemies  of  the  cotton-worm  are,  with  the  exception 
of  the  spiders,  all  true  insects.  These  enemies  may  be  divided,  for  the 
sake  of  convenience,  into  those  predaceous  and  those  parasitic  upon  the 
cotton- worm  in  one  or  another  of  its  stages.* 

PREDACEOUS. 

SPIDERS  (Araneida). — That  the  numerous  spiders,  always  to  be  found 
about  cotton  fields,  do  a  considerable  amount  of  good  in  capturing  the 
cotton-worms  and  the  cotton-moths  cannot  be  doubted.  The  jumping 

*  The  use  of  these  two  words  in  contradistinction  the  one  to  the  other  is  to  be  dep- 
recated, under  ordinary  circumstances,  from  the  fact  that  they  are  not  sufficiently 
definitely  limited  in  their  meaning,  and  that  there  are  many  insects  which  it  would 
be  difficult  to  designate  by  the  one  word  or  the  other.     In  the  present  case,  however,  no 
such  difficulty  occurs,  and  we  adopt  the  terms  predaceous  and  parasitic  as  affording  the 
most  convenient  division  of  this  head. 


IUVW   U.UUM 


SPIDERS    VS.    COTTON- WORMS.  163 

spiders  (Attides)  destroy  many  young  larvae  and  occasionally  are  able  to 
capture  a  moth. 

Mr.  Trelease  says:*  "One  day  in  July  I  saw  a  small  jnmping-spider 
leap  upon  a  half  grown  larva,  which  it  killed  and  sucked  the  juices  from." 
This  spider  proved  to  be  a  specimen  of  Attus  nubilus  and 
was  only  a  trifle  over  one-sixth  of  an  inch  in  length  (4min). 
As  a  characteristic  jumping  spider  we  figure  it.    (See  Fig.  6.) 
In  color  the  thorax  is  dark  brown  and  the  abdomen  is  very 
light  with  markings  of  brown.    These  jumpers  never  lose  a 
chance  to  catch  a  moth  when  they  are  able,  as  is  evinced 
by  the  following  extract,  also  from  Mr.  Trelease's  report:  1   -, 

About  twilight  of  August  27,  while  watching  numbers  of  moths  en-  F        6  _Afc 
gaged  in  eating  rotting  peaches  on  the  ground,  I  heard  a  rather  loud    ^us'  nubiius 
rustling  among  them,  and  several  took  flight  from  the  point  where  the 
noise  was  heard.     Going  to  the  spot  I  found  that  a  large  ground-spider  had  captured 
one  of  the  moths,  which  was  beating  its  wings  in  futile  efforts  to  escape.     Owing  to 
the  darkness,  the  spider  was  allowed  to  escape,  so  that  I  did  not  determine  the  species. 

The  large  nesting  spiders  (Epeirides),  of  which  the  commonest  species 
through  the  Southern  cotton-fields  is  Aryiope  riparia  (Epeira  riparia  of 
older  authors),  catch  the  moths  in  their  webs. 

A  common  and  doubtless  a  beneficial  species  which  I  observed  upon 
the  cotton-plant  in  Alabama  is 
a  large  pale-green  spider,  with 
long  spiny  legs    (Oxyopes  mri- 
dans).    (See  Fig.  7.) 

Clubiona  pollens  was  found 
nesting  in  cotton  quite  abund- 
antly. They  fold  the  cotton 
leaves  in  much  the  same  manner 
as  do  the  cotton-worms,  forming 
thereby  a  sort  of  basket,  in  which 
they  deposit  their  eggs.  They 
may  at  once  be  distinguished 
from  the  Aletia  web  by  the  white- 
ness of  the  silk  of  the  former.  FlG-  7.-OxyoPes  viridans. 

Among  the  smaller  species  which  have  been  noticed  upon  the  plant 
among  the  young  worms  may  be  mentioned  Attus  fasciatus,  Theridium 
globosum,  Theridium  funebre,  Epeira  stellata,  Sinyphia  communis,  Tethra- 
gnata  extensa,  Metlia  sp.,  and  Xysticus  spj 

Of  the  true  insects  that  prey  upon  the  eggs,  larvae,  or  adult  of  Aletia 
argillacea,  some  35  species  have  been  observed  by  the  correspondents 
and  observers  of  the  department.  Of  these  we  shall  speak  in  their 
regular  scientific  order,  beginning  with  those  belonging  to  the  XEUROP- 


*  Appendix  I,  report  of  William  Trelease. 

tThe  determinations  of  the  spiders  mentioned  in  this  report  were  made  by  Mr. 
George  Marx,  of  this  department. 


1G4  KEPOET  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

APHIS  LIONS  (Xcur.j  gen.  Chrysopa).    The  aphis  lions  are  the  larvae  of 
the  "  golden-eyed  lace-wing  flies" — insects  with  slender  bodies  and  ex- 
tremely delicate,  gauze-like  wings. 
Their  color   is  usually  green  and 
their  eyes  golden  (represented  in  all 
stages  by  Figures  8  and  9).    Upon 
being  disturbed,  they  emit  a  disa- 
greeable, fetid  odor.    Their  eggs  are 
FIG.  8.-Chrysopa  perla.  white  and  are  supported  by  long 

foot-stalks,  as  shown  in  the  figure,  usually  upon  plants  infested  with 
plant-lice.    The  larvae  are  active  and  extremely  voracious.    There  are 

two  or  more  broods  in  the  course  of  the 
summer,  and  the  last  brood  winters  in 
the  chrysalis  state,  protected  by  a  com- 
FIG.  9.— Chrysopa  oculata.  pact,  round,  whitish  cocoon. 
These  aphis  lions  are  abundant  upon  the  cotton  plant  throughout  the 
summer,  and  in  the  early  part  of  the  season  do  the  planters  much  good 
by  destroying  the  cotton-aphides  in  large  numbers.  Later  in  the  sea- 
son, we  have  the  authority  of  Dr.  Phares  for  stating  that  they  devour 
the  eggs  and  newly-hatched  larvae  of  the  cotton-moth.  Mr.  Trelease 
makes  the  following  mention  of  these  insects : 

The  larvae  (aphis-lions)  of  the  lace-winged  flies  are  also  very  plentiful  on  cotton, 
where  they  prey  upon  Aphides,  and  very  likely  they  may  also  destroy  eggs  of  Alctia. 

In  his  notes  he  says : 

Late  in  July  numerous  individuals  of  the  larvae  of  lace-winged  flics,  or  aphis-lions 
have  been  found  with  their  jaws  over  the  glands  on  the  under  surface  of  the  cotton 
leaves,  where  they  were  probably  feeding  on  nectar  through  their  hollow  mandibles, 
though  they  may  have  been  lying  in  wait  for  some  insect. 

Mr.  Trelease  also  states  that  it  is  an  idea  prevalent  among  many 
planters  that  these  lace- winged  flies  are  always  to  be  found  where  there 
are  larvae  of  Aletia. 

MOSQUITO-HAWKS,  DRAGON-FLIES,  or  DEVIL'S  DARNING-NEEDLES 
(Neur.j  Fam.  Libellulidae). — These  insects,  in  the  adult  stage,  are  so  well 
known  as  not  to  warrant  description.  The  eggs  are  laid  in  the  wrater,  either 
indiscriminately  dropped  or  deposited  around  the  stem  of  some  aquatic 
plant.  The  larvae  are  predacious,  living  upon  other  aquatic  insects,  and 
are  remarkable  for  two  things :  1,  the  syringe-like  apparatus  into  which 
the  posterior  part  of  the  alimentary  canal  is  transformed,  and  by  vio- 
lently ejecting  a  stream  from  which  the  insect  is  propelled  through  the 
water;  and,  2,  the  arrangement  of  the  jaws  at  the  tip  of  a  long  spoon- 
shaped  projection  of  the  lower  lip,  which  can  be  folded  under  the  head 
out  of  sight  while  the  insect  approaches  its  unsuspecting  prey.  The 
habits  of  the  perfect  insects  are  also  predaceous.  (We  figure  one  of  the 
most  common  species,  Lilellula  trimaculata.)  They  catch  and  eat  num- 
bers of  insects  upon  the  wing. 


REAR-HORSES    VS.    COTTON-WORMS.  165 

As  to  their  good  offices  in  destroying  cotton-moths,  we  quote  from  Mr. 
F.  M.  Meekin,  of  Morrison's  Mills,  Alachua  County,  Florida : 

There  is  an  insect  commonly 
called  the  mosquito-hawk  (I 
do  not  know  its  technical 
name).  It  is  long-bodied,  has 
two  sets  of  membranous 
wings,  a  large  head,  and  a 
long  continuation  of  the  ab- 
dominal portion  of  the  body. 
There  are  many  sizes  and 
colors.  They  live  on  insects 
and  on  each  other,  and  I  have 
frequently  seen  them  catch 
the  moth  of  the  cotton-cater- 
pillar. This  mosquito-hawk 

is   very   numerous   here,    of  FIG.  lO.-Libellnla  trimaculata. 

many  varieties,  varying  in 
size  from  an  inch  to  two  and  a  half  or  three  inches  in  length  of  body.  I  think  it  does 
more  to  prevent  the  development  of  the  cotton-caterpillar  than  all  the  rest  of  its 
enemies. 

Mr.  Meekin  probably  claims  too  much  for  these  insects.  Still,  in  view  of 
his  statements  and  of  the  well-known  habits  of  dragon -flies,  there  can  be 
little  doubt  but  that  they  can  be  considered  as  active  enemies  of  the 
cotton-moth. 

In  the  next  order,  ORTHOPTERA,  we  find  but  one  insect  which  preys 
upon  Aletia  argillacea;  although  in  parts  of  Texas,  according  to  Mr. 
Schwarz,  the  planters  insist  that  the  grasshoppers  eat  the  cotton- worm  ! 

THE  REAR-HORSE,  CAMEL-CRICKET,  OR  DEVIL'S  RIDING-HORSE  (Man- 
tis Carolina).  As  useful  an  insect  as  occurs  in  the  Southern  States 
is  known  by  the  above  popular  names  in  different  localities.  Its  food 
consists  entirely  of  other  insects,  which  it  approaches  stealthily  and 
seizes  with  its  powerful  spined  forelegs.  The  amount  of  good  which  it 
does  in  thus  destroying  noxious  insects  is  hard  to  estimate.  The  capacity 
of  each  individual  can  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  in  one  night  a  single 
female  has  been  known  to  kill  and  devour  eleven  Colorado  potato  beetles, 


FIG.  11.— Eggs  of  Mantis  Carolina. 

leaving  only  the  wing-cases  and  parts  of  the  legs.*  The  only  objection 
to  them  seems  to  be  that  they  are  not  sufficiently  discriminating  in 
choosing  their  prey,  and  beneficial  as  well  as  noxious  insects  suffer  from 
their  attacks.  They  seem  to  be  especially  fond  of  one  another,  and  after 
sexual  union  the  female  frequently  devours  the  male.t 

*See  First  Missouri  Entomological  Eeport,  p.  169  (1869). 
t  See  Packard's  Guide  to  the  Study  of  Insects,  p.  575. 


166  REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

The  mantis  winters  in  the  egg  state  and  its  peculiar  egg  masses  (see 
Fig.  11)  are  abundant  and  conspicuous  upon  tree  twigs  throughout  the 
winter. 

In  spite  of  the  good  reputation  of  these  "rear-horses"  as  insect  des- 
troyers, Mr.  J.  H.  Krancher,  of  Millheim,  Austin  County,  Texas,  seems 
to  be  the  only  one  of  our  correspondents  who  has  actually  seen  them  kill 
the  cotton-worms,  as  he  includes  them  in  his  list  of  insect  enemies.  In 
addition,  Mr.  Trelease  reports  the  following : 

My  friend  Mr.  Jolin  Wilkins,  of  Selma,  Ala.,  tells  me  that  iu  the  canebrake  lie  has 
several  times  seen  the  common  green  mantis  (Mantis  Carolina)  leap  upon  these  larvae 
(cotton-worms)  on  plants  near  the  borders  of  cotton-fields,  but  these  insects  do  not 
venture  far  from  the  bushes  around  the  field. 

It  is  probable,  however,  that  these  insects  are  more  abundant  than  it 
would  seem  at  first  glance,  and  when  the  cotton  is  well  grown  will 
probably  be  found  in  all  parts  of  the  field  and  not  confined  to  the 
bushes  around  its  border.  They  should  never  be  thoughtlessly  killed. 

The  next  order,  HEMIPTEKA,  contains  several  hard-working  cotton- 
worm  enemies. 

THE  SPINED  SOLDIER-BITO  (Anna  (Poclisus)  spinosa  Dallas). — This 
insect  (Fig.  12)  is  a  most  useful  one  from  its  usual  cannibalistic  habits. 
Mr.  Glover's  resume  of  its  habits  is  as  follows  :* 

"  Ins.  found  puncturing  the  leaves  and  limbs  of  apple-trees  and  suck- 
ing out  the  sap  (Fitch).     It  is,  however,  also  beneficial  as  destroying 
the  larvseof  the  Colorado  potato-bug  (Doryphora  W-lineatca)  by  punc- 
turing them  with  its  beak  and  sucking  out  their  juices.     It  also  de- 
stroys lady-bugs   (Coccinella)   (American  Entomologist)  Audrena,  a 
wild  bee,  and  the  American  gooseberry  saw-fiy  (Prisliphora  grossu- 
FIG.  12.— Arma  iaria,,  Walsh;  also  the  Cicada  (Am.  Ent.,  L,  4T).    This  insect  is  said 
spinosa.         to  be  Qne  of  the  kitterest  enemies  to  the  Colorado  potato-bug,  and 
therefore,  although  it  may  perhaps  do  some  injury  to  fruit  trees,  it  ought  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  public  benefactor  and  not  destroyed." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  this  insect  does  an  excellent  work  in 
the  cotton-fields  of  the  South.  Dr.  Phares  says,  in  answer  to  question 
6  a  of  the  1878  circular: 

Many  are  said  to  do  so,  of  which  I  cannot  testify ;  but  for  the  following  I  can : 
Soldier-bugs  pierce  the  caterpillar,  suck  their  juices,  and  thus  destroy  them  (see  illus- 
trative plate,  Rural  Carolinian,  August,  1870,  p.  683).  The  soldier-bug  presents  his 
lance,  moves  deliberately  and  steadily  along  till  the  caterpillar  is  impaled. 

Specimens  were  also  received  from  Mr.  Trelease,  with  the  remark  that 
he  had  observed  them  on  several  occasions  to  kill  the  cotton-worm.  In 
addition  to  these  statements,  we  have  two  more  which  may  possibly 
refer  to  this  insect,  although  they  may  just  as  well  refer  to  any  one  of 
the  many  others  in  this  order.  Mr.  George  F.  Webb,  of  Amite  County, 
Mississippi,  says :  "  There  is  an  insect,  the  name  of  which  I  cannot 
give,  that  pierces  with  its  beak  into  the  worm,  and  the  worm  expires ; 
but  this  is  of  no  consequence,  the  number  of  worms  being  billions 
and  the  bugs  being  comparatively  few."  Dr.  J.  U.  Ball,  of  Bayou  Sara, 
"Manuscript  Notes  from  my  Journal,  Hemiptera.  Washington,  187G. 


THE    THICK-THIGHED   METAPODIUS.  167 

La.,  says:  "The  chinch-bug  known  to  be  one  of  its  enemies;"  and.  J. 
P.  Krancher  states  that  "  several  varieties  of  field  bugs  are  known  to 
attack  it." 

THE  GREEN  SOLDIEK-BUG-  (Rapliigast&r  [Nezara]  Mlaris,  [Pennsylva- 
nicus,  of  Fitch.]  ). 

This  insect  was  figured  by  Mr.  Glover  in  his  report  on  Cotton  Insects 
(Kept,  Dept,  of  Agri.,  1855,  PI.  VIII,  Fig.  5,  p.  93),  and  in 
the  text  spoken  of  as- piercing  cotton-bolls  and  sucking 
the  sap.  Mr.  Bailey,  of  Monticello,  Fla.,  is  given  as  au- 
thority for  the  statement.  It  was  said  to  be  very  abun- 
dant in  the  cotton  fields. 

Concerning  its  killing  the  cotton- worm,  Professor  Wil- 
let  in  a  recent  letter  to  this  department  has  the  following: 

A  -word  about  an  enemy  to  the  cotton-worm.  At  Montezuma,  FIG.  13.— -Raphi- 
Macon  County,  Georgia,  September  20,  when  collecting  cotton- worms  Saster  nilaris- 
(Aletla  argillacea)  for  experiments,  I  saw  one  extended  in  the  air  horizontally  from  a 
cotton  leaf,  holding  on  only  by  his  two  anal  feet  and  contorting  his  body  about  as  if 
iu  great  pain.  On  examination,  I  found  a  plant  bug  had  pierced  him  about  the  anus 
and  was  quietly  sucking  his  juices.  I  had  no  vial  nor  box,  and  could  only  drop  them 
in  the  basket  with  other  Iarva3.  The  next  morning  I  found  the  caterpillar  dead ;  but 
the  bug  was  not  to  bo  found.  I  think  from  the  hurried  sight  I  got  it  is  what  Glover 
calls  the  green  Plant  Bug,  Plate  VIII,  Fig.  5.  A  gentleman  living  there  told  me  he 
saw  another  cotton-worm  impaled  in  its  side  by  a  similar  bug. 

It  would,  of  course,  be  unsafe  to  accept  the  identity  of  the  insects  upon 
such  insufficient  grounds,  but  it  is  probable  that,  if  not  the  same,  Mr. 
Willet's  insect  was  an  allied  species  of  Baphigaster.  We  have  Mr. 
Glover's  authority  that  either  Mlaris  or  a  closely  allied  species  is  pre- 
daceous  upon  the  Colorado  potato-beetle.  It  is  probable  also  that  the 
same  insect  is  meant  by  several  of  our  correspondents,  who  enumerate 
"  green  chinches  "  as  among  the  enemies  of  the  cotton- worm.  A  very 
conscientious  correspondent  says,  "  I  have  seen  a  green  chinch  sucking 
the  juices  of  the  cotton- worm ;  cannot  say  that  the  worm  was  injured  by 
the  act"! 

THE  THICK-THIGHED  METAPODIUS  (AcantJiocepliala  [Metapodius]  fe- 
morata,  Fab.,  Rhinuchus  nasulus  of  Say). — Concerning  the  occurrence  of 
this  insect  in  the  cotton  field,  Mr.  Glover  said  in  1855 : 

These  insects,  though  somewhat  numerous,  were  never  observed  to  suck  the  sap 
from  the  bolls,  yet  it  would  be  well  to  investigate  their  habits  more  minutely  before 
deciding  whether  they  are  injurious  or  not. 

The  following  short  account  of  the  insect  is  from  tie  department  re- 
port for  1875,  p.  129 : 

Acanthocepliala  (Metapodius  fcmorata),  so  called  from  its  swollen,  spiny  thighs,  is  a 
large  reddish-brown  or  blackish  insect,  qxiite  abundant  in  the  southern  cotton  fields. 
It  is  very  slow  in  its  motions,  and  appears  to  be  fond  of  basking  in  the  sun.  The 
thighs  are  strongly  developed  and  spiny,  especially  on  the  under  side,  while  the 
shanks  have  broad  thin  plate  or  leaf-like  projections  on  their  sides,  which  gave  these 
insects  a  very  peculiar  appearance.  The  eggs  are  smooth,  short,  oval,  and  have  been 
found  arranged  in  beads  like  a  necklace  oil  the  leaf  of  white  pine.  The  full-grown 


1G8 


EEPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 


insect  is  said  to  injure  cherries  in  the  Western  States  by  puncturing  them  with  its 
beak  and  sucking  out  the  juices,  thus  proving  it,  at  least  in  one  instance,  to  be  a 
feeder  on  vegetable  substances. 

Its  importance  to  the  cotton  planter  is  shown 
by  the  following  account  by  Mr.  Trelease  : 

Several  bugs  (Remiptera)  were  seen  to  kill  the  cot- 
ton-worm. Early  in  the  season  great  numbers  of  a  large 
ill-smelling  bug  with  dilated  hind  legs  (Acanlhocephala 
femorata)  were  seen  in  the  weeds  and  shrubbery  about 
the  borders  of  the  cotton-fields,  being  very  noticeable 
on  account  of  its  buzzing  flight.  After  Aletia  appeared 
in  numbers,  fewer  of  these  bugs  were  seen,  but  they 
were  several  times  seen  to  catch  caterpillars  and  suck 
the  juices  of  their  bodies. 

The  full-grown  insect  is  shown  at  Fig.  14. 
Planters  will  do  well  to  avoid  destroying  either 
these  insects  or  their  eggs. 

FIG.  14.— Acanthocephala  fe-      THE  DEVIL'S  HORSE  Oil  WHEEL-BUG  (P)'iono- 

niorata.  ^us  cristatm,1um.]  Reduviiisnovenarius^  Say) . 

Mr.  Glover,  in  the  1855  report,  mentions  this  insect  as  among  the  few 
beneficial  to  the  cotton  plant.  He  there  mentions  that  he  placed  a  young 


FIG.  15. — Prionotus  cristatus. 

specimen  of  Reduvius  in  a  box  with  ten  caterpillars,  all  of  which  it 
destroyed  in  the  short  space  of  five  hours. 

Concerning  the  general  habits  of  the  insect,  we  quote  from  the  excel- 
lent account  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture  Report  for  1875,  p.  128  : 

This  insect  is  very  common  in  Washington,  and  is  very  destructive  to  insects ;  and 
as  agriculturists  are  very  apt  to  clear  their  trees  in  spring  of  eggs,  cocoons,  &c.,  of 


THE    RAPACIOUS    SOLDIEE-BUG.  169 

insects,  imagining  that  they  are  all  injurious  to  vegetation,  it  will  he  well  to  warn 
them  that  some  species  are  beneficial,  by  destroying  injurious  insects,  and  their  clus- 
ters of  eggs  should  be  preserved  wherever  found.  Among  these,  a  hexagonal  mass  of 
eggs  Avill  frequently  be  met  with,  cemented  together  with  a  species  of  guin  or  resin, 
which  is  said  to  be  gathered  from  the  tree  by  the  female.  These  hexagonal  masses  of 
eggs  are  deposited  on  the  bark  of  trees,  on  fence-rails,  under  the  eaves  of  outbuildings, 
or  wherever  the  female  chances  to  be  at  the  time  of  oviposition,  to  the  number  of  seventy 
or  more ;  each  egg,  when  separated  from  the  mass  presenting  the  appearance  of  a  some- 
what'square  flask  standing  on  its  own  bottom.  The  larvae,  when  young,  are  blood-red 
with  black  marks,  and  do  not  resemble  the  adult  insect,  excepting  somewhat  in  form 
and  habits.  The  larvae,  pupae,  and  perfect  insects  feed  upon  all  other  insects  they 
can  overcome,  not  even  sparing  their  own  brethren.  When  very  young  they  destroy 
great  numbers  of  plant-lice,  Aphides,  and,  when  older,  they  prey  upon  caterpillars,  or, 
indeed,  upon  any  other  insect  they  can  overpower.  They  kill  their  prey  by  inserting 
into  it  the  proboscis,  which  ejects  a  most  powerful  poisonous  liquid  into  the  worm. 
The  victim  thus  pierced  dies  in  a  very  short  time.  Then  they  leisurely  suck  the  juices 
out  and  drop  the  empty  skin. 

The  perfect  wheel-bug  is  a  large  and  very  singular-looking  insect,  of  very  slow  and 
deliberate  motions  when  undisturbed  and  stealing  up  to  its  prey.  It  is  of  a  grey  color, 
and  has  a  high  semicircular  ridge  or  projection  on  the  crest  of  its  thorax,  armed  with 
nine  perfectly  arranged  teeth  or  cog-like  protuberances  like  very  short  spokes  or  cogs 
of  a  wheel ;  hence  the  vulgar  name  of  wheel-bug.  The  young  shed  their  skins  several 
times  before  attaining  their  full  size.  As  this  insect  is  constantly  employed,  from  the 
moment  it  is  hatched,  in  searching  for  and  destroying  noxious  insects,  it  may  be  con- 
sidered a  friend  to  the  horticulturist  and  farmer. 

A  dozen  or  so  of  these  insects,  placed  near  the  nest  of  some  of  those  caterpillars  so 
destructive  to  our  fruit  aad  forest  trees  will  destroy  almost  every  caterpillar  in  it  in  a 
short  time,  as  they  are  so  extremely  voracious  that  each  insect  will  destroy  several  cat- 
erpillars daily.  Great  care  must  be  taken,  however,  when  handling  the  adult  insects, 
as  they  are  very  apt  to  sting  or  rather  insert  their  strong  curved  beaks  into  the  naked  flesh, 
and  the  poisonous  fluid  ejected,  when  the  wound  is  made,  is  extremely  powerful,  and 
much  more  painful  than  the  sting  of  a  large  wasp  or  hornet.  One  of  these  insects,  having 
stung  the*  writer,  the  pain  lasted  for  several  hours,  and  -was  only  alleviated  by  appli- 
cations of  ammonia.  Several  days  afterward  the  flesh  immediately  surrounding  the 
puncture  was  so  much  poisoned  that  it  sloughed  off,  leaving  a  small  hole  in  the  injured 
thumb. 

For  the  activeness  of  the  devil's  horse  in  the  cotton  fields  of  the  South, 
many  correspondents  have  vouched,  and  planters  should  treat  h:m  like 
the  friend  that  he  is. 

THE  RAPACIOUS  SOLDIER-BUG  (Sinea  multispinosa,  De  Geer,  [Say's 
Reduvim  raptatorius] ). — This  insect  (see  Fig.  1C)  is  lound  all  over  the 
country,  North  and  South,  preying  upon  all  kinds  of  insects.  Ljke  the 
last-named  species,  whe:i  young  it  devotes  itself  to  plant-lice,  bus  upon 
attaining  its  growth  it  attacks  insects  of  a  l.:rger  size  and  of  more 
economic  importance.  In  the  North  it  has  done  a  good  work  in  destroy- 
ing canker-worms,  Colorado  potato-beetles,  and  other  pests,  and  during 
the  past  summer  they  were  seen  in  considerable  numbers  about  the  cot- 
ton fields,  engaged  in  killing  the  cotton-worms. 

According  to  the  editors  ot  the  American  Entomologist,  Vol.  I,  p.  207, 
the  eggs  of  the  rapacious  soldier -bug  are  about  the  size  of  a  'coinmou 
pin's  head,  are  laid  in  two  parallel  rows  upon  the  bark  of  limbs  or  twigs, 
and  each  egg  is  bordered  round  its  tip-end  with  a  fringe  of  short  prickles. 


170  KEPORT    UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 

When  newly  hatched,  the  young  soldier-bugs  may  be  frequently  found 
m  the  curl  of  the  common  elm-leaf  plant-louse  (Schizoneura  Americana), 
and  also  the  common  apple  aphis  (Aphis  mali),  busily  engaged  in  de- 
vouring the  lice ;  and  it  is  more  than  probable  that  in  the 
cotton  fields  they  will  be  found  preying  upon  the  cotton - 
louse  (Aphis  gossypii).    The  full-grown  insect  is  shown  at 
T  /"*^^"\     ^*£'  ^'    -ft  is  brownish  in  color,  with  a  reddish  stripe 
r\^K/"  fl°wn  tue  back  of  the  abdomen.    The  front  legs  are  greatly 

)  OB  4  enlarged  and  powerfully  spined,  enabling  the  insect  to  hold 
its  struggling  prey.  From  these  spines,  and  those  upon 
FIG.  ifi.— Sinea  the  head,  it  has  gained  its  scientific  name,  Multispinosa. 
multispinosa.  In  action  to  tnese  nve  hemipterous  insects,  many  speci- 
mens of  a  small  black  and  red  bug  were  many  times  seen  about  the  pupae 
of  Aletia,  and  were  often  found  within  the  loose  cocoons.  Although  they 
were  never  actually  observed  to  kill  the  chrysalides,  their  presence  looks 
suspicious,  especially  as  upon  examination  their  beaks  were  found  to  be  of 
the  short,  broad,  predaceous  type.  All  of  the  specimens  forwarded  to  the 
department  were  of  immature  individuals,  from  which  it  was  impossible 
to  ascertain  the  species.  They  were  flat,  nearly  round,  a  trifle  over  one- 
tenth  of  an  inch  (3mm)  in  length.  The  head  and  thorax  were  black ;  the 
abdomen  had  a  broad  red  band  around  near  the  margin,  and  three  nar- 
row transverse  white  bands. 

Although  we  have  several  parasites  on  the  cotton-worm  belonging  to 
the  next  order,  DIPTERA,  the  only  predaceous  insects  from  this  order  are 
the  Asilus  flies. 

ASILUS-FLIES  OR  ROBBER-FLIES  (Dipt.  fam.  Asiliidae.) — The  large 
buzzing  fly  with  long  slender  abdomen,  and  thick  hairy  throat,  is  a 
familiar  sight  in  the  cotton  field  to  the  observing  planter.  A  popular 
name  was  never  more  appropriately  applied  than  that  of  robber-flies 
("  rpulfliegen"),  given  to  these  flies  by  the  Germans.  They  are  amoug 
the  most  rapacious  of  insects ;  but  not  only  are  they  as  indiscriui  mat- 
ing as  other  predaceous  insects,  but  some  species  seem  actually  to  prefer 
beneficial  insects  as  a  steady  diet.  There  is  almost  no  enemy  which  the 
apiarist  fears  more  than  these  "  bee-killers,"  as  some  species  are  termed. 
Dr.  Fitch  has  written  a  very  interesting  account  of  these  insects,  from 
which  we  take  the  following  *  : 

These  ilies  are  inhuman  murderers.  They  are  the  savages  of  the  insect  world,  put- 
ting  their  captives  to  death  with  merciless  cruelty.  Their  large  eyes,  divided  into 
such  a  multitude  of  facets,  probably  give  them  the  most  acute  and  accurate  vision 
for  espying  and  seizing  their  prey ;  and  their  long  stout  legs,  their  bearded  and  bristly 
head,  their  whole  aspect  indicates  them  to  bo  of  a  predatory  and  ferocious  character. 
Like  the  hawk,  they  swoop  upon  their  prey,  and,  grasping  it  securely  between  their 
fore  feet,  they  violently  bear  it  away.  They  have  no  teeth  and  jaws  wherewith  to 
bite,  gnaw,  and  masticate  their  food,  but  are  furnished  instead  with  an  apparatus 
\vhich  answers  them  equally  well  for  nourishing  themselves.  It  is  well  known  what 
maddening  pain  the  horseflies  occasion  to  horses  and  cattle  in  wounding  them  and 
sucking  their  blood.  These  Asilus-flics  possess  similar  organs,  but  larger  and  more 

*  Fitch's  Noxious  Insects  of  New  York,  IX,  255. 


ASILUS-FLIES   VS.    COTTON- WORMS.  171 

simple  in  their  structure,  more  firm,  stout,  arid  powerful.  lu  the  horse-flies  the  trunk 
or  proboscis  ia  soft,  flexible,  and  sensitive  ;  here  it  is  hard  and  destitute  of  feeling — a 
large,  tapering  horn-like  tube,  inclosing  a  sharp  lance  or  spear-pointed  tongue  to  dart 
out  from  its  end  and  cut  a  wound  for  it  to  enter ;  this  end,  moreover,  being  fringed 
and  bearded  around  with  stiff  bristles  to  bend  backward  and  thus  hold  it  securely  in 
the  wound  into  which  it  is  crowded. 

The  proboscis  of  the  horse-fly  is  tormenting,  but  this  of  the  Asilus-flies  is  torturing. 
That  presses  its  soft  cushion-like  lips  to  the  wound  to  suck  the  blood  from  it ;  this 
crowds  its  hard  prickly  knob  into  the  wound  to  pump  the  juices  therefrom.  It  is  said 
Asilus  flies  sometimes  attack  cattle  and  horses,  but  other  writers  disbelieve  this.  *  *  * 
Certain  it  is  that  these  flies  nourish  themselves  principally  upon  other  insects,  attack- 
ing all  that  they  are  sufficiently  large  and  strong  to  overpower.  Even  the  hard  crus- 
taceous  shell  with  which  the  beetles  are  covered,  fails  to  protect  them  from  the 
butchery  of  these  barbarians.  And  formidably  as  the  bee  is  equipped  for  punishing 
any  intruder  which  ventures  to  molest  it,  it  here  finds  itself  overmatched,  and  its 
sting  powerless  against  the  horny  proboscis  of  its  murderer.  These  flies  appear  to  be 
particularly  prone  to  attack  the  bees.  Eobineau  Des  Voidy  states  that  he  had  repeat- 
edly seen  the  Asilus  diadema,  a  European  species  somewhat  smaller  than  this  of  Ne- 
braska, flying  with  a  bee  in  its  hold.  But  it  probably  does  not  relish  these  more  than 
it  does  other  insects.  We  presume  it  to  be  because  it  finds  them  in  such  abundance 
as  enables  it  to  make  a  meal  upon  them  most  readily,  and  with  least  exertion,  that 
these  flies  fall  upon  the  bees  and  rose-bugs.  And  so  large  as  they  are,  a  single  one  will 
require  perhaps  a  hundred  bees  per  day  for  its  nourishment.  If  these  flies  are  common, 
therefore,  they  will  inevitably  occasion  great  losses  to  the  bee-keepers  in  that  part  of 
the  country. 

Since  the  foregoing  account  was  written,  Mr.  Thomson  has  favored  us  with  another 
communication  giving  some  most  interesting  observations  upon  the  habits  and  destruc- 
tiveness  of  this  insect,  which  we  here  append  in  his  own  words.  He  says: 

"  After  sending  you  the  specimens  I  watched  its  proceedings  and  habits  with  much 
care,  and  found  that,  in  addition  to  the  honey  bee  and  rose  bugs,  it  devours  many 
other  kinds  of  beetles,  bugs,  and  flies,  some  of  which  are  as  large  again  as  itself.  It 
appears  to  be  in  the  months  of  June  and  July  that  it  is  abroad  npon  the  wing,  destroy- 
ing the  bees.  None  of  them  are  now  (August)  to  be  seen.  When  in  pursuit  of  its 
prey  it  makes  quite  rapid  dashes,  always  capturing  the  bee  on  the  wing.  When  once 
secured  by  wrapping  its  legs  about  it,  pressing  it  tightly  to  its  own  body,  it  immedi- 
ately seeks  a  bush  or  tall  weed  upon  which  it  alights  and  commences  devouring  its 
prey  by  eating  (piercing)  a  hole  into  the  body,  and  in  a  short  time  entirely  consuming 
it  (sucking  out  the  fluids  and  soft  internal  viscera)  and  leaving  only  the  hard  outer 
skin  or  shell  of  the  bee.  Upon  the  ground,  beneath  some  favorable  perch  for  the  fly 
near  the  apiary,  hundreds  of  these  shells  of  bees  are  found,  accumulated  in  a  single 
day.  Whether  the  work  of  one  fly  or  of  several  I  am  not  able  to  say.  I  have  just 
returned  from  a  professional  tour  through  the  northern  part  of  our  territory,  taking 
nursery  orders,  and  in  many  things  this  business  and  the  apiary  are  closely  connected. 
In  no  case  have  I  found  a  hive  of  bees  that  has  thrown  off  a  swarm  this  season!  The 
dry  weather,  bad  pasture,  and  other  reasons  were  assigned  as  the  cause.  But  many 
persons,  since  they  have  found  this  fly  at  his  work  of  destruction,  now  believe  it  to 
be  the  cause  of  this  non-swarming  of  the  bees ;  and  I  am  led  to  the  sama  opinion.  I 
have  only  to  add  further  that  this  bee -killer  delights  in  hot  dry  weather,  and  it  is  very 
invulnerable  and  tenacious  of  life.  I  have  observed  the  honey-bee  and  also  the  hornet 
sting  it  repeatedly,  but  with  no  other  effect  than  to  cause  it  to  tighten  its  hold  upon 
them.  Once  when  I  forced  the  assassin  to  release  his  prey,  he  gave  me  such  a  wound 
in  the  hand  as  has  taught  me  ever  since  to  be  very  cautious  how  I  interfere  with 
him.'' 

Mr.  Thompson,  in  an  article  in  the  Kural  World  for  September  12, 
18GS,  stated  that  he  had  observed  one  individual  Asilus-fl y  to  destroy 
141  bees  in  one  day. 


172 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 


FIG.  17.— Erax  bastardii. 


The  early  forms  of  the  insects  of  this  family  are  known  of  but  few- 
species.  Of  those  that  are  known  we  can  safely  say  they  are  vegetable 
feeders,  although  in  the  first  report  on  the  Eocky  Mountain  Locust,  the 
larva  of  Erax  Bastardii  is  figured  (Fig.  17)  and 
spoken  of  ashaviug  been  observed  by  Miss  Emma 
A.  Smith  to  feed  upon  the  eggs  of  the  locust. 
In  the  same  report,  however,  the  larva  of  the 
common  "white  grub"  (Lachnosterna  fusca)  is 
mentioned  as  feeding  upon  the  eggs  of  the  locust 
also,*  and  the  wrriter  simply  deduces  from  that 
instance  that  it  affords  "another  conclusive  proof 
that  an  essential  vegetable  feeder  will  excep- 
tionally lake  to  soft  animal  food."  This  argu- 
ment then,  as  the  analogy  between  the  two  cases 
is  perfect,  we  can  apply  to  the  larva  of  Erax  and  conclude  it  with  the 
rest  of  the  family  to  be  normally  vegetarian  in  the  larva  state.  This  is 
the  more  likely  to  be  the  case  as  the  larva  of  the  same  species  is  described 
in  the  second  Missouri  Entomological  Report  as  from  "under  a  peach 
tree"  and  "under  a  creeping  vine." 

In  order  to  give  a  general  idea  of  the  appearance  of  the  larva  and 
pupa  we  will  quote  Harris'  description  of  these  forms  of  Asilus  sericeous, 
Say,  the  larva  of  which  devours  the  roots  of  tart  rhubarb.  Speaking 
of  the  larvae,  he  says : 

They  were  yellowish  white  maggots,  about  three-quarters  of  an  inch  long,  not  per- 
fectly cylindrical  but  a  little  depressed  and  tapering  at  each  end.  Tho  head  \vas 
small,  brown,  and  partially  drawn  within  the  first  ring,  and  was  provided  with  two 
little  horny  brown  hooks.  There  was  a  pair  of  breathing  pores  on  the  first  ring,  and 
another  pair  on  the  last  but  one.  These  maggots  were  transformed  in  the  earth  to 
naked  pupa}  having  the  limbs  free.  The  pupa  was  brown  and  had  a  pair  of  short 
horns  on  the  forehead,  three  spines  on  each  side  of  the  head,  a  forked  tail,  and  a  trans- 
verse row  of  little  teeth  across  the  middle  of  each  ring  of  the  hind  body.  When  about 
to  undergo  their  last  transformation,  the  pupae  work  their  way  to  the  surface  of  the 
ground  by  the  help  of  the  little  teeth  on  their  wings.  I  have  repeatedly  seen  the 
empty  pupa-shells  sticking  out  of  the  ground  around  rhubarb  plants. 

So  much  for  Asilus-flies  in  general.  Three  species 
have  been  captured  in  the  cotton-fields  of  Alabama. 
These  are  Erax  apicalis,  Wied.,  Dioymites  discolor, 
Lw.,  and  Dionyzias  ?  sp.  By  far  the  most  abundant 
species  was  Erax  apicalis,  Wied.  This  species  (rep- 
resented by  Fig.  18)  varies  from  an  inch  to  an  inch 
and  a  quarter  in  length  (25  to  32mm)  and  has  a  wing 
expanse  of  nearly  an  inch  and  a  half.  The  abdo- 
men is  black  with  silvery  markings  above  and  whit- 
FIG.  18.-Erax  apicalis.  igU  below  The  top  of  the  tllorax  is  yellowish-white 

and  brown  above  as  seen  in  different  lights.    The  legs  are  spiny  and 

light-brown  in  color,  and  the  face  is  nearly  white.    In  the  summer  of 

1878  I  observed  large  numbers  of  these  insects  flying  around  the  cot- 

*First  Ann.  Rept.  U.  S.  Eut.  Com.  on  the  Rocky  Mountain  Locust,  1877,  p.  305. 


TIGER-LiiETLES    VS.    COTTON- WORMS.  173 

ton  fields  in  the  vicinity  of  Selma,  Ala.,  occasionally  darting  to  the 
ground  and  seizing  some  insect.  With  some  difficulty  a  specimen  was 
captured  while  engaged  in  sucking  the  juices  of  a  young  grasshopper 
(Caloptenus  sp.)  During  the  past  summer  Mr.  Trelease  forwarded  sev- 
eral of  these  insects  to  the  department  from  Minter,  Dallas  County, 
Alabama.  He  stated  that  they  \\  ere  vt  ty  abundant  in  the  cotton  fields, 
and  had  been  several  times  seen  to  catch  the  cotton-moth  on  the  wing 
and  devour  it.  The  rapacity  and  the  capacity  of  these  flies  have  been 
seen  in  the  quotation  from  Fitch ;  and  even  supposing  each  individual 
in  the  southern  cotton  fields  in  the  course  of  a  day  to  kill  cotton-moths 
in  numbers  that  shall  seem  small  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  bees 
which  Mr.  Thompson  actually  saw  them  kill,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  put 
them  down  as  among  the  very  best  friends  of  the  planter.  The  benefits 
derived  from  the  abundance  of  this  insect  will,  however,  be  greatly  de- 
tracted from  wherever  bees  are  kept,  and  it  is  also  more  than  probable 
that  its  fondness  for  insects  of  this  sort  leads  it  to  kill  "wasps"  and 
"hornets,"  some  of  which,  as  will  be  shown  further  on,  are  very  efficient 
enemies  of  the  cotton-worm.  The  harm  done  in  the  latter  way  is  un- 
doubtedly more  than  compensated  for  by  the  cotton- worms  killed,  but 
the  former  habit  is  one  which  cannot  be  condoned,  and  which  quite  ef- 
fectually spoils  the  character  of  these  otherwise  beneficial  insects. 

The  next  order,  COLEOPTERA,  contains  vtiy  nicny  pi  edaceous  in- 
sects, and  more  species  from  tins  order  have  been  found  to  prey  upon, 
the  cotton- worm  than  from  any  other. 

TIGER-BEETLES  (Coleopt,  fam.  Cincindelidae). — T.:e  tiger-beetles  are 
characterized  by  having  large  heads,  broader  than  the  chest,  long 
curved  jaws  and  long  t- lender  legs.  They  are  always  metallic  green  or 
brown  in  color  with  purple  reflections  in  different  lights,  ard  are  usually 
marked  with  light  dots  and  stripes.  They  are  to  be  found  in  sunny 
paths  and  sandy  places.  They  fly  and  run  very  swiftly,  and  are  very 
difficult  to  capture.  Their  larvae  are  curious  in  appearance  and  inter- 
esting in  habits.  They  inhabit  cylindrical  holes  in  the  ground,  which 
they  probably  form  for  .hem selves.  They  maintain  their  places  at  the 
mouths  ot  their  pits  and  prevent  themselves  from  being  dragged  forth 
by  means  of  two  hooks,  which  each  carries  upon  the  ninth  segment  of 
its  body,  giving  it  a  humpbacked  appearance.  The  heads  of  these 
larvae  are  large  and  flattened,  and  carry  formidable  ja*s.  Stationing 
themselves  with  their  jaws  at  the  mouths  of  their  burrows,  they  lie  in 
wait  for  approaching  insects,  which,  when  near  enough,  they  seize  and, 
retreating  to  the  bottom  of  their  burrows,  devour.  They  transform  to 
the  pupa  state  within  their  burrows,  the  mouths  of  which  they  close  as  a 
preparatory  step.  Several  species  are  abundant  in  the  southern  cctton 
fields,  and  have  been  stated  by  correspondents  to  devour  the  cotton-worm. 
Unfortunately,  however,  these  insects  are  ground-beetles  and  their  ca- 
pac  ty  for  good  in  this  direction  is  limited,  as  they  can  only  attack  those 
individuals  which,  for  some  reason,  have  fallen  to  the  ground. 


174 


EEPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


The  Carolina  tiger-beetle  (Tetraclia  Carolina  Linn.)  was  mentioned  by 
Mr.  Glover  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture  Keport  for  1855  (p.  109), 
as  among  those  insects  "beneficial  to  the  cotton  plant"  by  destroying 
its  enemies.*  He  remarks  that  "this  species"  appears  not  to  be  so 
partial  to  the  light  of  the  sun  as  some  other  species,  but  often  conceals 
itself  under  stones.  It  is  also  seen  much  more  frequently  in  the  cotton 
fields  during  cloudy  weather,  toward  evening,  than  in  a  fervid  midday 
sun.  Many  specimens  of  this  beetle  have  been  forwarded  to  the  depart- 
ment during  the  past  summer  from  the  Alabama  cotton  fields ;  Dr.  A. 
W.  Hunt,  of  Denison's  Landing, 
Perry  County,  Tennessee,  mentions 
it  in  his  list  of  insects  preying  upon 
the  cotton-worm.  Fig.  19  repre- 
sents very  fairly  the  perfect  insect. 
It  is  usually  about  three-fourths 
of  an  inch  (19mm)  in  length,  is  of  a 
brilliant  metallic  color  with  purple 
and  croppery  reflections  as  viewed 
FIG.  19.— Tetracha  in  different  lights.  The  eyes,  legs,  FIG. 20.— Tetraclia  Vir- 

and  mouth  parts  are  of  a  dirty  white. 

The  Carolina  tiger-beetle  can  at  once  be  distinguished  from  the  only  other 
North  American  representative  of  the  genus  Tetracha  (T.  Virginica)  (see 

Fig.  20)  by  the  comma-shaped 
yellowish  mark  at  the  end  of 
each  wing  cover. 

Other  tiger  beetles  belonging 
to  the  typical  genus  Cicindela 
are  found  in  the  cotton  fields 
performing  the  same  good  of- 
fices. We  figure  several  com- 
mon species  in  order  to  give  a 
general  idea  of  the  group.  At 
Fig.  21  a  larva  and  several 
species  in  the  adult  form  are 
shown. 

GROUND-BEETLES  (Coleopt., 
fam.  Carabidae). — Almost  all 
of  the  beetles  belonging  to  this 
family  are  carnivorous,  and 
the  family  as  a  whole  does  an 
immense  amount  of  good  by  destroying  injurious  insects.  These  in- 
sects are  to  be  found  during  the  day  under  sticks  and  stones  and 
under  the  bark  of  trees,  from  which  places  they  go  out  at  night  to 
hunt  for  their  prey.  The  larvae  live  in  similar  situations  and  are  also 


FIG.  21.— Several  forms  of  tiger  beetles. 


*Mr.  Glover  uses  the  generic  name  Megaccpltala  in  speaking  of  this  insect,  but  this 
genus  contains  only  South  American  and  African  species. 


TIGER-BEETLES    VS.    COTTON-WORMS. 


175 


nearly  always  predaceous.  The  generalization  is  made  by  Packard  that 
they  are  "  generally  oblong,  broad,  with  the  terminal  ring  armed  with 
two  horny  hooks  or  longer  filaments,  and  with  a  single  false  leg  be- 
neath." Of  these  beetles  all  which  are  to 
be  found  in  the  cotton  fields  will  undoubt- 
edly lose  no  chance 
to  destroy  the  cot- 
ton-worms. A  cor- 
respondent from 
Texas  speaks  of- 
"the  large  green 
ground-beetle"  as 
destroying  the 
worms.  These  are, 
in  all  probability, 
FIG.  22.— Calosoma  scrutator.  Calosoma  scrutator  FlGl  23.— Calosoma  callidum. 

Fabr.,  shown  at  Fig.  22.  According  to  Harris,  this  insect  is  known  to 
ascend  trees  in  search  of  canker-worms  and  similar  insects.  Another 
beetle  of  similar  habits  is  Calosoma  callidum,  shown 
at  Fig.  23.  Mr.  Glover  in  the  1855  report  figures  a 
species  of  Harpalus,  probably  H.  caliginosus  Say,  see 
Fig.  24,  and  in  the*  text  refers  to  it  as  being  abundant 
in  the  cotton  fields  and  beneficial  by  destroying  the 
different  enemies  of  the  cotton  plant. 

SOLDIER-BEETLES  (Coleopt,  fam. 
LampyridcB)  genus  Cliauliognatlms 
Hentz). — The  family  Lampyridce  is 
popularly  known  as  the  fire-fly  family, 
and  the  adult  beetles  are  too  well 
known  to  need  description.  In  the 
perfect  state  they  are  nearly  all  veg- 
etable feeders,  while  the  larvae  are 
are  nearly  all  carnivorous.  The  larvae 
FIG.  24.  — Harpa- of  Chauliognatlius  are  long,  slender,  FIG.  24^.— Larva  of 

Ins  caiigimosus.  flattened?  tapering  toward  the  ends,  Harpalus. 
active,  with  large  jaws.  They  are  usually  blackish,  with  pale  spots.at  the 
angles  of  the  segments.  Chauliognatlius  Pennsylvanicus  (Fig.  25)  was 
found  by  Mr.  Glover  to  be  so  plen- 
tiful in  the  cotton-fields  near  Co- 
lumbia, S.  C.,  that  four  to  six  might 
be  taken  from  one  bloom  alone. 
They  seem  to  feed  entirely  upon  the 
pollen  or  nectar  of  the  flower,  and 
would  so  busily  engage  themselves 
in  feeding  as  scarcely  to  notice  the  FlG>  25.-Chauliognathus  Pennsylvania, 
approach  of  mankind.  When  issuing  from  the  flower  they  would  nearly 
always  be  so  covered  with  masses  of  pollen  as  scarcely  to  be  recognizable. 


176  REPORT   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

They,  without  doubt,  served  a  good  purpose  in  assisting  the  thorough  fer- 
tilization of  the  flower.  This  beetle  is  about  three-quarters  of  an  inch  in 
length,  with  black  head,  eyes,  legs,  and  antennae.  The  thorax  and  wing- 
cases  are  orange-yellow,  with  a  large  dark  spot  in  the  center  of  the  thorax, 
and  a  broad  black  stripe  down  the  center  of  each  wing-case,  thus  leaving 
a  narrow  margin  of  orange-yellow  all  around.  The  yellow-margined  sol- 
dier-beetle (Chauliognatlms  marginatus]  was  found  by  Mr. 
Glover  to  take  the  place  of  the  Pennsylvania  soldier-beetle 
in  Florida.  This  insect  (Fig.  26)  is  about  half  an  inch  in 
length,  and  may  be  distinguished  from  the  former  species 
by  the  head  and  lower  part  of  the  thighs  being  orange.  The 
harm  done  by  the  adults  is  slight,  if  any,  and  the  good 
3? '  * "  accomplished  by  the  larvae  is  probably  considerable.  We 

FIG.  26.— c.  mar-  have  no  definite  report  of  their  having  been  observed  to 
giuatus.  destroy  either  the  eggs  or  the  young  of  the  cotton-moth, 
yet  from  their  well-known  proclivities  they  probably  do  so,  and  from  the 
numbers  in  which  the  adults  occur,  we  can  readily  suppose  that  no 
small  amount  of  good  is  done  in  this  way.  At  all  events,  the  soldier- 
beetles  should  not  be  destroyed. 

LADY-BIRDS,  OR  LADY-BUGS  (Coleopt.,  family  CoccinelMae.) — The 
"lady- birds"  are  better  known,  perhaps,  than  any  other  family  of  beetles. 
They  are  small,  round,  and  hemispherical,  usually  red,  yellow,  or  black, 
with  spots  of  one  or  the  other  of  these  colors.  All  are  carnivorous  ex- 
cept Epilaclma.  The  eggs  are  usually  long,  yellow,  and  oval,  and  are 
laid  in  patches,  often  in  the  midst  of  a  group  of  plant-lice,  which  the 
newly-hatched  larvae  greedily  devour.  The  larvae  (see  Fig.  29)  are  long, 
soft-bodied,  rather  pointed  toward  the  end,  and  are  quite  active.  The 
jaws  are  small  and  inconspicuous.  They  are  often  quite  gaily  colored, 
and  covered  with  scattered  tubercles,  spines,  or  tufts  of  hair.  They  attain 
their  full  growth  in  three  to  four  weeks.  When  about  to  transform  to 
pupae  they  attach  themselves  by  the  end  of  the  body  to  a  leaf  or  twig, 
and  either  throw  off  the  old  larva  skin,  which  remains  around  the  tail, 
or  retain  it  around  the  pupa  for  a  protection.  The  pupa  (Fig.  27),  is 
small  and  rounded,  simulating  the  true  beetle.  The  perfect  insect  comes 
forth  in  about  a  week.  The  larvae  feed  upon  plant-lice  and  other  small 
insects,  of  which  they  destroy  immense  numbers.  The  adult  beetles 
also  destroy  other  insects,  although  in  lesser  number  than  the  larvae. 
Quite  a  number  of  species  of  the  lady-birds  arc  found  in 
the  cotton  fields  doing  good  work,  a  few  of  the  most  com- 
mon of  which  we  figure  and  briefly  describe. 

Coccinella  novemnotafa,  Herbst.  (Fig.  27  and  pupa),  is 
light  yellowish-red  in  color,  and  may  at  once  be  distin- 
guished  by  the  nine  black  spots  upon  its  wing-covers,  ar- 
FIG.  27.— Cocci-  ranged  as  shown  in  the  figure,  four  upon  each  wing-cover, 
nella  9-notata.  tue  two  ^^^  ones  \)emgthe  larger,  and  one  in  front  on  the 
middle  line.     Coccinella  munda  (Fig.  28)  is  a  smaller  species  of  precisely 


THE   LADY    BIEDS    VS.    THE    COTTON-WOEM.  177 

the  same  color,  but  without  any  spots  upon  the  wing-covers.  Its  thorax 
is  black,  with  two  small  light  spots.  Hippodamia  convergens  (Fig.  29)  re- 
sembles the  preceding  in  general  ground  color.  It 
is  larger  and  more  elongated.  On  the 
wing-covers  are  thirteen  small  black 
*  spots.  The  thorax  is  black,  with  a 
ijght  yellow  margin  and  two  lines  of  the 
FIG.  28.  —  C.  same  color  approaching  a  Y  in  shape.  FIG.  29.— H.  conver- 

munda.  Hippodamia  maculata   (Fig.  30)   is  gei18' 

pink  in  color,  with  ten  large  black  spots  on  the  wing-covers,  of  which 
two  are  upon  the  middle  line.  The  thorax  is  pink,  with  two  large  black 
spots,  and  the  head  is  pink,  with  black  eyes.  It  is  smaller 
than  the  last-named  species.  Coccinella  venusta  (Fig  31)  is 
larger  and  broader.  It  is  pink  in  color,  with  ten 
large  black  spots  upon  the  wing-covers,  of  which 
the  hind  two  blend  into  each  other  across  the 
middle  line.  The  inner  middle  spots  are  shaped 
FIG  30.— H.  like  inverted  commas.  The  thorax  is  pink,  with 
four  black  spots,  of  which  the  two  hinder  ones 
meet  across  the  middle  line  to  form  a  Y.  Chilocorus  livulnerus,  Muls. 
(the  twice-stabbed  lady-bird),  is  hemispherical  in  form  and  shiny  black 
in  color.  A  little  in  front  of  the  middle  of  each  wing-cover  is  an  irregu- 
lar bright  red  spot.  The  thorax  is  black,  with  a  whitish  border,  and 
the  head  is  whitish,  with  black  eyes. 

That  these  lady-birds  destroy  many  eggs  and  newly-hatched  worms 
of  the  cotton-moth  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Mr.  Trelease  reports : 

I  have  seen  but  one  insect  destroying  the  eggs  of  the  Aleiia,  viz,  the  larva  of  one  of 
the  lady-birds  (Hippodamia  convergens).  This  was  on  the  26th  of  August.  The  larva 
was  searching  the  lower  surface  of  a  leaf,  apparently  for  Aphides,  when  it  encountered 
an  Aletia  egg,  which  it  immediately  bit  with  its  mandibles ;  but,  as  if  disliking  its  taste, 
it  left  the  egg  uneaten  and  passed  on.  Later,  I  saw  this  same  larva  bite  another  egg, 
and  this,  too,  was  left  without  further  disturbance,  but  of  course  both  eggs  were  killed. 
Though  many  hours  were  spent  in  looking  for  further  attacks  upon  the  eggs  of  Aletia, 
the  difficulties  necessarily  attendant  upon  such  observations  prevented  me  from  seeing 
any  more.  From  the  actions  and  known  proclivities  of  the  lady-birds  known  as  Hip- 
podamia converf/ens,  H.  maculala,  Coccinella  munda,  and  C.  9-notata,  all  of  which  are 
found  in  abundance  on  cotton  plants,  and  of  Chilocorus  bivulnerus,  one  adult  of  which 
was  seen  searching  the  leaves  of  cotton,  I  suspect  that  they  all  destroy  thetee  eggs 
more  or  less  commonly. 

In  Dr.  Phares's  report  an  unknown  enemy  of  the  cotton- worm  was 
spoken  of.  Concerning  this  insect,  in  a  later  letter,  Dr.  Phares  says: 

In  my  report  upon  the  cotton-infesting  insects  made  last  autumn,  in  that  portion  in 
which  mention  is  made  of  insect  enemies  of  the  Aletia,  one  is  referred  to  and  obscurely 
figured  on  paper.  I  find  that  my  son  had  drawn  it  separately  and  distinctly,  and  it 
proved  to  be  a  Coccinella  or  Hippodamia.  We  are  both  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  the  larva 
of  Coccinella  novemnotata,  so  abundant  on  the  cotton  plant. 

In  his  report,  Dr.  Phares  speaks  of  these  larvae  as  feeding  upon  the 
chrysalides  of  Aletia.    This  might  seem  at  variance  with  the  well-known 
12  C  i 


178  EEPOET   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

habits  of  these  larvae  (feeding,  as  they  do  generally,  upon  smaller  insects, 
or,  at  all  events,  upon  insects  of  but  slightly  larger  size  than  themselves), 
to  attack  so  large  an  object  as  the  chrysalis  of  the  cotton  worm ;  but  Mr. 
Glover  has  placed  on  record  a  similar  iustauce.  He  says: 

The  perfect  lady-bird,  also  destroys  Aphides,  but  not  iu  such  numbers  as  their  larvae 
in  which  state  it  also  destroys  the  chrysalis  of  the  butterfly  (Aryynnis  columlriiia)  seen 
so  often  in  the  cotton  fields.  I  have  repeatedly  observed  them  in  Georgia  killing  the 
chrysalides  of  this  butterfly,  which  hung  suspended  from  the  fence-rails  and  on  the 
under  side  of  the  boughs  of  trees  and  shrubs.  It  appears  to  attack  the  chrysalis 
chiefly  when  soft  and  just  emerged  from  the  caterpillar  skin.  It  is  in  this  state  that 
these  wandering  larvae  attack  it,  and,  biting  a  hole  in  the  skin,  feed  greedily  upon  the 
green  juice  which  exudes  from  the  wound.  Sometimes,  however,  it  becomes  a  victim 
to  its  own  rapacity,  for  the  juice  of  the  chrysalis  drying  up  in  the  heat  of  the  sun 
quickly  forms  an  adhesive  substance  in  which  the  larva  is  caught,  and  thus  detained 
until  it  perishes. 

It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  destroying  of  the  cotton -worm  chrys- 
alis by  lady-bird  larvae  is  only  of  exceptional  occurrence.  In  addition 
to  the  evidence  already  given,  Mr.  J.  H.  Krancher  of  Millheim,  Tex.,  in- 
forms us  that  the  lady-birds  destroy  the  eggs  of  the  cotton-moth,  and 
Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson  mentions  them  among  the  cotton-worm  enemies. 

We  figure  the  only  vegetable-feeding  lady-bird  in  order  that  those  in- 
terested may  know  what  it  is,  and  not  consider  it  a  beneficial  species.    It 
is  known  as  Epilaclma  borealis,  Thunberg.    It  is  much  larger  than  any 
before  mentioned,  is  of  a  light  redish  yellow  in  color,  with 
seven  large  black  spots  upon  each  wing-cover.    The  thorax 
is  of  the  same  color  and  has  four  small  black  spots.    The 
head  is  concolorous  with  the  thorax,  and  the  eyes  are  black. 
Both  the  larvae  and  perfect  insects  feed  upon  the  leaves  of 
cucumbers,  melons,  squashes,  and  pumpkins — eat  unsightly 
laclma   bo-  holes  in  them,  and,  when  numerous,  completely  destroy  the 
realis.          plant,    Another  beetle,  of  injurious  proclivities,  is  often  mis- 
taken for  a  lady-bird  by  the  planters,  although  it  belongs  to  an  entirely 
different  family.    This  is  the  twelve- spotted  Diabrotica,  Diabrotica  duo- 
decim-punctata,  Fabr.    This  insect  is  shown  at  Fig.  33,  and 
certainly  does  resemble  Coccinella  to  the  untrained  eye.    The 
principal  points  of  difference  between  it  and  the  common 
Hippodamias,  which  it  most  resembles,  are  that  the  Dia- 
FIG.  33.— Dio-  brotica  is  usually  greenish,  varying  occasionally  to  yellowish ; 
brotica  12-  that  it  has  twelve  black  spots  arranged  in  parallel  rows 
punctata.     f|own  £ne  wing-covers,  and  that  the  thorax  is  green  and  un- 
spotted.    The  twelve-spotted  Diabrotica  belongs  to  the  family  Chryno- 
mclidae,  or  leaf-eating  beetles.    Dr.  Packard  states  that  they  devour 
the  leaves  of  dahlias,  and  Professor  Riley  has  found  them  gnawing 
melons,  squashes,  and  cucumbers. 

In  the  next  order,  LEPIDOPTERA,  it  would  be  fair  to  suppose  that  the 
cotton-worm  had  no  enemies,  since  predaceous  insects  are  extremely 
rare  in  this  Order.  In  point  of  fact  there  are  probably  but  three  true 


BOLL-WORMS   VS.    COTTON- WORMS.  179 

Lepidopterous  predatory  insects  upon  record.  These  are  Euclemensia 
Bassettella,  Clemens,  which  feeds  upon  the  eggs  of  an  oak-bark  louse,* 
Semasia  prunivora,  Walsh,  which  feeds  upon  the  lice  of  the  coxcomb 
elm-gall  (Colopha  ulmicola,  Itiley),  and  Dakruma  coccidivora,  Comstock, 
which  preys  upon  the  eggs  and  young  of  cottony  maple  scale  insect t 
(Pulvinaria  innumerabilis,  Rath  von). 

In  spite  of  this  fact,  many  Lepidopterous  larvae  when  placed  in  con- 
finement will  destroy  one  another,  and  facts  have  developed  which  war- 
rant us  in  putting  the  boll-worm  down  as  an  occasional  enemy  of  the 
cotton-worm. 

THE  BOLL-WORM  (HeliotUs  armigera,  Hiibn.). — Although  the  boll- 
worm  may  be  put  down  as  almost  omnivorous,  and  although  it  becomes 
cannibalistic  in  confinement  (so  much  so  that  in  breeding  but  one  can 
be  kept  in  the  same  cage,  and  in  sending  through  the  mails  one  box  had 
to  be  allowed  for  each  individual),  we  hardly  expected  to  see  it  develop 
any  characteristic  which  could  be  called  beneficial  j  yet,  according  to 
the  observations  of  Mr.  Trelease,  it  seems  to  have  done  so.  Mr.  Trelease 
says  in  his  report : 

Owing  to  its  tough  integument,  the  pupa  of  Aleiia  seems  to  be  freer  from  insect 
attack  than  the  larva  is,  yet  even  its  hard  skin  does  not  always  save  it.  About  the 
middle  of  August  I  first  noticed  what  appeared  to  be  an  anomalous  preparation  for 
pupation  in  the  boll-worm  (Hdiothis  armiyera),  for  I  found  several  full-grown  larvae 
of  this  species  with  leaves  closely  webbed  around  them,  precisely  as  Aletia  webs  up 
before  changing  to  a  pupa.  An  examination  of  one  of  these,  however,  showed  me 
that  the  boll- worms  had  not  webbed  them  about  themselves,  but  had  insinuated  them- 
selves into  leaves  folded  and  preoccupied  by  Aletia,  the  latter  having  already  passed 
into  the  pupa  state ;  and  they  had  done  this  for  the  express  purpose  of  feeding  on 
these  pupae ;  many  cases  of  this  sort  ivere  seen. 

So  plain  a  case  as  this  requires  no  comment.  It  is  of  interest  scien- 
tifically but  its  practical  bearings  are  slight.  Earlier  in  his  report,  bear- 
ing on  this  same  point,  Mr  Trelease  says : 

No  Lepidopterous  enemies  of  Aletia  larvae  were  observed  by  myself,  but  Dr.  Lock- 
wood  of  Carlowville,  Ala.,  says  that  a  number  of  years  ago,  he  saw  a  large  green 
larva  devouring  numbers  of  cotton-caterpillars.  From  what  we  know  of  the  habit  of 
the  boll-worm  (Heliothis  armiyera)  it  seems  not  at  all  unlikely  that  these  larvae  may 
have  belonged  to  that  species. 

It  will  also  be  interesting  in  this  connection  to  state  that  the  boll- 
worms  have  been  observed  to  kill  one  another  on  the  plants,  in  open 
air,  and  perfectly  unmolested,  as  will  be  shown  in  Part  II. 

As  bearing  upon  this  point  of  other  Lepidopterous  larvae  attacking 
the  cotton-worm,  we  quote  the  following  sentence  from  Dr.  Ander- 
son's report:  "I  have  never  seen  the  worm  attacked  by  any  other  in- 
sect than  t\\Q  grass-worm  and  then  only  when  brought  in  contact."  Con- 
cerning this  same  insect,  Lapliygma  fruyiperda,  of  Smith  &  Abbot 


*  Proc.  Ent.  Soc.,  Phila.,  ii,  p.  423. 
t  North  American  Entomologist,  i,  p.  25,  October,  1879, 


180  REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

(Prodenia  autumnalis  of  Riley),  Mr.  Glover,  in  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture Report  for  1855,  p.  78,  says : 

The  grass-caterpillars,  when  in  confinement,  very  often  kill  and  devour  each  other, 
and  when  one  is  maimed  in  the  least  it  stands  a  very  poor  chance  for  its  life.  Several 
intelligent  planters  state  that  when  the  grass  and  weeds  are  entirely  devoured,  and 
no  other  vegetable  food  is  to  be  found,  they  will  attack  each  other,  and  feed  upon  the 
still  living  and  writhing  bodies  of  their  former  companions.  One  grass-caterpillar 
which  was  kept  in  confinement,  although  furnished  with  an  abundance  of  green  food, 
actually  appeared  to  prefer  to  feed  upon  other  caterpillars,  no  matter  of  what  kind,  so 
long  as  their  bodies  were  not  defended  by  long  bristling  hairs  or  spines. 

It  is  in  the  next  order,  HYMENOPTERA,  that  we  find  the  most  effective 
enemies  of  the  cotton-worm. 

WASPS  (Hymenopt.,  fam.  Vespariae). — These  well-known  insects,  as  a 
class,  although  they  occasionally  do  some  harm  by  injuring  fruit  or  by 
killing  honey-bees,  may,  on  the  whole,  be  called  very  beneficial  insects. 
Not  only  do  they  devour  injurious  insects  themselves,  but  they  also 
store  them  up  as  food  for  their  young.  Concerning  the  actions  of  cer- 
tain wasps  in  the  cotton  fields,  we  cannot  do  better  than  to  quote  again 
from  Mr.  Trelease's  report : 

Wasps  freqnent  the  cotton  plant  in  considerable  numbers,  being  attracted,  like  the 
ants,  in  part  by  the  nectar  secreted  by  the  plant ;  and  there  is  much  reason  to  believe 
that  all  of  the  species  which  visit  the  plant  feed  more  or  less  commonly  upon  the 
caterpillar  or  larva  of  Aletia.  I  am  led  to  this  conclusion  by  the  following  observations. 
On  the  8th  of  August,  when  larvae  of  the  fourth  brood  of  Aletia  were  very  abundant 
in  the  swamp-cotton,  I  saw  a  large  red  and  yellow  wasp — Polistes  bellicosa,  Cresson 
(see  Fig.  34)— hunting  for  them.  Carefully  walking  around  the  holes  eaten  through 
by  the  caterpillars,  she  explored  their  borders  with 
her  antennae,  as  if  feeling  for  the  larvae ;  and  each 
time  that  she  found  one  in  this  way  she  quicklysprang 
after  it,  but  at  the  same  instant  the  larva  threw  itself 
from  the  leaf;  so  that,  while  I  was  watching  her,  I 
saw  no  less  than  eight  escape,  the  ninth  being  caught 
and  eaten.  Occasionally  she  would  stop  hunting 
long  enough  to  sip  a  little  nectar  from  the  foliar  glands 
of  the  plant,  and  then  the  chase  was  resumed.  I 
was  very  much  surprised  to  see  that  she  relied  eii- 
FIG.  34.— Polistes  bellicosa.  tirely  on  the  tactile  sense  of  the  antennae  for  finding 
her  prey.  Though  possessing  well-developed  ocelli  and  compound  eyes,  she  seemed  to 
make  little  use  of  them ;  and  repeatedly  I  saw  her  alight  on  a  leaf  close  to  a  caterpillar 
without  paying  any  attention  to  him  till  she  touched  him  with  her  antennas,  when,  as 
before  stated,  she  would  instantly  spring  after  it.  Observations  of  this  sort  were  made 
several  times  on  this  wasp.  Another  large  brown  wasp  (I'olistes  sp.)  was  also  seen  to 
catch  larval  Aletias,  as  also  were  a  yellow-jacket  hornet  (  J'espa  sp. ),  and  r.  common  mud- 
dauber  ( Pelopceus  caruleus,  Linn. ),  and  they  all  alternated  hunting  for  cateridllan;  with 
feeding  on  nectar.  Both  species  of  Folistes  were  several  times  seen  flying  about  with 
dead  caterpillars,  having  previously  reduced  them  to  a  pulpy  mass  with  their  man- 
dibles. They  were  probably  looking  for  some  quiet  place  in  which  to  eat  them. 

Further  on  in  the  report  occurs  the  following : 

Early  in  September,  while  watching  these  moths  as  they  fed  on  rotting  figs,  I  saw 
many  white-faced  hornets  (  Vespa  maculata)  about  the  fig-trees.  One  of  these  hornets 
was  seen  to  catch  a  two-winged  fly  nearly  as  large  aa  itse'-f.  After  killing  it,  the  hor- 


ANTS    VS.    COTTON-WORMS.  181 

net  proceeded  to  deprive  the  fly  of  its  legs  and  wings,  which  -were  allowed  to  fall  to 
the  ground.  The  fly  was  then  carried  away.  Under  these  same  trees  I  found  the 
wings  of  Alctia  moths,  and  it  looks  from  these  as  though  these  moths  are  sometimes 
killed  by  the  hornet ;  still,  I  never  saw  a  hornet  in  the  act  of  killing  a  moth,  or  with, 
the  dead  body  of  one,  and  I  am  aware  their  usual  food  is  flies. 

We  find,  then,  that  certain  species  of  wasps  destroy  the  cotton-worm, 
and  also,  without  much  doubt,  the  cotton-moth.  The  following  species 
of  so-called  "wasps"  were  caught  on  the  cotton  plant  in  Alabama,  and, 
in  all  probability  feed  upon  the  worms  :*  Monedula  Carolina,  Fab.  (Hy- 
menopt.,  fam.  Bembecidae;  Ells  k-notata,  Fabr.;  Elis  plumipes,  Drury 
(Hymenopt,  fam.  ScoUadae);  Pelopceits  cccruleun,  Linn.  (fam.  Spliegldae}-, 
Polistes  bellicosa,  Cress,  j  Vespa  Carolina,  Drury. 

ANTS  (Hymenopt.,  fam.  Formicariae). — The  predaceous  insects  from 
which  the  cotton-worm  suffers  the  most  are,  without  doubt,  the  ants. 
These  insects,  from  their  war-like  habits  and  the  enormous  numbers  in 
which  they  occur,  seem  peculiarly  fitted  to  hold  in  check  even  so  dan- 
gerous an  enemy  as  the  cotton-worm.  The  efficacy  of  ants  as  cotton- 
worm  destroyers  has  been  noticed  by  but  few  writers  upon  the  cotton- 
worm,  and  indeed  there  are  some  who  insist  that  they  never  attack  it. 
During  my  own  stay  at  the  South  I  never  was  able  to  see  ants  attack  a 
worm  upon  the  plant.  Upon  the  ground,  however,  the  case  was  far  dif- 
ferent, as  is  shown  by  the  following  brief  extracts  from  my  note-book: 

August  28,  1878,  8  a.  m. — I  revisited  the  field  ;  there  are  many  larvae  crawling  over 
the  ground.  I  have  collected  specimens  of  a  small  ant,  which  I  find  destroying  these 
larvae.  The  head  and  thorax  aie  brown,  while  the  abdomen  is  shining  black.  They 
sting  severely. 

A  perfectly  healthy  cotton-worm  is  crawling  along  the  ground,  an  ant  rushes  up  to 
it,  and,  I  presume,  stings  it;  the  larva  at  once  wriggles  away  a  short  distance — an 
inch  or  so  (as  the  larva  cannot  get  a  firm  hold  on  the  ground,  it  is  unable  to  spring 
as  when  upon  a  leaf) ;  the  ant  follows  and  repeats  the  attack.  I  have  seen  these  ma- 
neuvers repeated  many  times.  It  often  happens  that  the  larva  escapes,  but  fre- 
quently it  is  overpowered  by  many  ants  and  destroyed. 

I  saw  a  larva  wriggling;  a  single  ant  was  clinging  to  it,  and,  although  the  larva 
struggled  violently,  the  ant  kept  its  hold.  Soon  other  ants  sprang  upon  the  larva, 
and  within  two  minutes  it  was  overpowered.  This  occurred  over  a  crack  in  the 
ground  from  which  the  ants  emerged. 

In  dry  weather  the  ground  cracks  to  a  great  extent.  The  ants  make  their  nest  in 
these  ci  acks,  and  while  excavating  them  cover  the  sni  face  of  the  ground  with  fine 
particles  of  earth.  It  is  difficult  for  cotton-worms  to  crawl  over  such  places;  for 
when  they  seize  hold  of  the  loose  particles  of  earth  by  their  fore  legs,  they  are  unable 
to  balance  themselves,  roll  over  upon  their  sides,  and  if  the  earth  be  hot,  speedily  per- 
ish. In  this  indirect  way  the  ants  cause  the  destruction  of  millions  of  the  worms. 

I  sent  from  Bacouton,  Ga.,  spe/;hn<>ns  of  an  ant  which  I  found  there  attacking  and 
destroying  Alctia  larvae  which  were  crawling  on  the  ground.  This  ant  does  not  seem 
to  have  the  power  of  stinging,  but  worres  the  larva  to  death  by  biting. 

The  first  notice  of  the  services  of  ants  as  cotton- worm  destroyers  that 
we  have  seen  was  by  Mr.  Winfree,  in  De  Bow's  Review  for  1847.    He 
stated  that  the  ants  were  a  wonderful  check  to  the  multiplication  of  the 
*  Identified  by  Mr.  Cresson. 


182  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

cotton-worm.    Mr.  Glover,  in  the  Agricultural  Eeport  for  1867,  p.  60, 
says : 

The  eggs  of  the  cotton-moth  are  frequently  destroyed  by  several  species  of  small 
ants,  which  are  said  to  bite  the  eggs  open  when  first  deposited,  and  to  abstract  the 
substance.  Many  caterpillars,  especially  if  weak  or  somewhat  disabled,  fall  victims 
to  the  voracity  of  the  restless  myriads  of  ants  always  abounding  in  the  fields  and  feed- 
ing upon  the  honey-dew  secreted  by  the  cotton-louse  or  aphis,  and  the  bodies  of  such 
insects  as  they  can  overcome. 

Dr.  Phares,  however,  takes  a  very  different  view  of  the  ant  question, 
as  advanced  in  the  following  quotation  in  his  1869  essay :  * 

Last  year  on  a  farm  in  Louisiana,  as  already  mentioned,  the  caterpillar  commenced 
its  work  as  early  as  May,  and  continued  iintil  frost  terminated  its  labor;  yet  one  gen- 
eration succeeded  another  so  slowly  and  in  such  small  numbers  that  the  cotton  was 
scarcely  injured;  while  on  other  places  where  the  destroyer  appeared  later  the  cotton 
plants  were  so  early  and  completely  destroyed  as  not  to  mature  sufficient  seed  to  plant 
another  crop.  Why  this  difference?  The  owner  of  the  farm  mentioned,  as  well  as 
others,  alleged  that  the  ants  being  very  numerous,  earned  off  and  destroyed  the  eggs  and 
young  caterpillars.  The  ants,  it  is  true,  swarmed  in  unwonted  numbers  in  the  cotton 
fields,  as  they  did  also  in  corn-fields,  potato-patches,  gardens,  orchards,  and  forests. 
But  on  other  places  where  there  were  plenty  of  ants  constantly  infesting  the  plant  the 
caterpillar  wholly  destroyed  the  cotton.  Again,  in  some  fields  the  cotton  was  completely 
stripped,  as  we  often  see,  up  to  a  definite  line  on  one  side,  while  not  a  leaf  was  touched 
on  the  other  side  of  this  lino.  This  occurs  even  where  the  same  rows  cross  this  line, 
one  portion  of  the  row  being  stripped  and  the  other  unharmed,  although  there  were 
plenty  of  ants  on  both  sides  of  this  mysterious  line,  established  by  the  caterpillars 
themselves.  And  again,  on  inquiry,  I  have  never  found  any  one  who  has  seen  the  anlseat' 
ing  or  carrying  off  either  the  eggs  or  young  caterpillars. 

Here,  then,  it  appears,  is  a  total  want  of  facts,  and  the  ant  theory  is  so  far  without  a 
shadow  of  foundation  on  observed  facts. 

The  ants  collected  in  the  cotton  fields  were  referred  to  the  Eev.  H.  C. 
McCook,  of  Philadelphia,  and  he  has  kindly  prepard  the  following  report 
upon  them : 

FORMICABIAE. 

The  specimens  of  ants  sent  are  of  seven  species,  all  of  which  are  represented  as  in 
attendance  upon  or  actually  engaged  in  the  destruction  of  the  cotton-worm.  These 
species  represent  two  of  the  three  families  of  Formicariae,  viz,  Formicidac  and  Myrini- 
cidae.  Of  these,  two  were  too  much  broken  to  allow  specific  determination. 

The  relation  of  ants  to  the  Iarva3  of  Lepidopterous  insects  has  recently  attracted  the 
attention  of  students.  During  the  summer  of  1877  I  observed  several  workers  of 
.Formica  fusca  in  friendly  attendance  upon  a  small  green  grub  which  proved  to  be  the 
larva  of  Lycaena  pseudargiolus,  a  butterfly.*  About  the  same  time  Mr.  W.  H.  Ed- 
wards, widely  known  as  a  student  of  Lepidoptera,  observed  the  same  behavior,  and 
during  the  following  year  pursued  his  investigations  further.  The  results  he  has 
given  in  an  interesting  communication  to  the  Canadian  Entomologist.  He  showed 
that  the  ants  attend  the  larvae  with  the  same  purpose  as  that  which  attracts  them  to 
the  Aphides,  viz,  to  feed  upon  a  sweet  excretion  which  issues  from  the  insect.  In  the 
Aphis  this  is  probably  excrementitious.  In  the  larva  the  sweet  exudation  is  a  secre- 

*  Rural  Carolinian,  1869,  p.  (190. 

"Mound-making  Ants  of  the  Alleghenies,  Trans  Am.  Ento.  Soc.,  1877,  p.  290,  and 
John  A.  Black,  Philadelphia. 


ANTS   VS.    COTTON- WORMS.  183 

tion  from  the  llth  segment  of  the  body.  Mr.  Edwards  saw  the  ants  greedily  licking 
up  this  secretion,  and  caressing  the  body  of  the  grub  with  its  antennae.  I  have  had 
the  pleasure  of  verifying  a  great  part  of  his  statements  by  personal  observations.  Two 
of  the  ants  thus  obtained  by  Mr.  Edwards  in  attendance  upon  caterpillars  were. Formica 
fusca  and  I'renolepis  nittns. 

Some  of  the  ants  herein  described  are  referred  to  by  the  collector  simply  as  in  attend- 
ance upon  the  cotton-worm.  It  would  be  interesting,  as  a  question  in  natural  history, 
to  know  whether  they  were  engaged,  as  in  the  case  of  the  ants  above  noticed,  in  col- 
lecting a  sweet  secretion.  In  this  case  they  would  be  more  likely  to  befriend  than  to 
injure  their  hosts. 

Several  of  the  species,  however,  were  actually  seen  by  Mr.  Comstock  killing  the 
worm.  This  was  especially  the  case  with  the  erratic  ant,  Dorymyrmex  insanus,  Dory- 
myrmex  flavm,  and  Solenopsls  xyloni,  the  "cotton-ant,"  as  it  may  be  termed,  and  Mono- 
morium  carbonarium.  The  above  three  species  include  the  greater  part  of  the  speci- 
mens sent,  of  which  fully  one-half  were  of  the  cotton-ant.  In  one  bottle  the  body  of 
the  worm  was  preserved  contorted  as  in  a  death  struggle,  and  a  number  of  ants  were 
clinging  to  it  at  various  parts  with  feet  and  mandibles.  The  larva  had  evidently  been 
attacked  by  a  large  number  of  the  ants,  and  all  were  surprised  by  the  collector  in  the 
midst  of  the  fray. 

It  is  the  habit  of  nearly  all  known  species  of  ants  to  feed  upon  the  bodies  of  dead 
insects,  worms,  and  uponauimal  fats  and  juices  generally.  They  attack  small  insects 
and  grubs,  or  disabled  insects  and  worms,  quite  freely  for  the  purpose  of  food. 

They  also  attack,  with  great  fury  and  in  united  force,  any  such  creatures  as  may  invade 
their  premises  or  cross  their  path.  It  seems  more  probable  that  the  cotton-worm  was 
attacked  in  this  manner  by  the  ants  here  described  than  that  they  were  deliberately 
hunted  down  for  food.  At  all  events,  the  amount  of  damage  done  to  the  worms  even 
by  the  hordes  of  ants  that  inhabit  the  Southern  States  cannot  be  very  large.  One 
worm  would  furnish  a  day's  rations  for  a  whole  colony  of  such  small  ants  as  these. 
The  friendly  oflSces  of  the  emmets  in  preserving  the  cotton  crop  can,  therefore,  hardly 
have  an  appreciable  commercial  value.  Nevertheless  it  is  a  matter  for  congratulation 
that  their  military  services,  however  insignificant,  are  in  the  right  direction. 

The  following  information  as  to  ants  vs.  cotton-worm,  collected  by  the  Department, 
bears  upon  this  point,  and  may  justify  a  more  sanguine  view  of  the  beneficial  services 
of  ants  than  the  above.  The  testimony  has  been  gathered  from  a  wide  range  of  ter- 
rilory,  extending  from  the  Atlantic  coast  to  Central  Texas,  embracing  the  States  of 
North  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Tennessee,  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  and  Texas.  It 
would  appear  from  these  observations  that  (1)  the  ants  do  certainly  feed  upon  the 
eggs  of  the  cotton-worm,  and  (2)  more  or  less  freely  upon  the  larvae.  That  (3)  the 
attacks  made  by  the  ants  are  more  likely  to  occur  when  the  worms  are  found  on  the 
ground,  and  (4)  are  confined  to  bright,  pleasant  weather  when  the  ants  come  out  of 
their  formicaries  to  seek  food.  One  writer  expresses  the  hope  that  the  ant  will  ulti- 
mately exterminate  the  cotton-worm,  of  which  it  is  now  the  greatest  enemy;  another 
thinks  that  in  dry  seasons  the  absence  of  caterpillars  is  due  to  emmet  hostility;  while 
a  good  observer  like  Mr.  Trelease  ventures  the  opinion  that  "  ants  are  probably  among 
the  most  important  of  the  enemies  of  the  cotton-caterpillar." 

Are  any  predaceous  insects  or  parasites  known  to  prey  upon  it,  either  in  the  egg, 
larva,  or  chrysalis  state  ? 

The  common  little  red  ant  is  the  only  insect  known  to  attack  it.— [H.  E.  Brown, 
Camden,  Ala. 

Ants. — [Knox,  Minge  and  Evans,  Faunsdale,  Ala. 

It  is  believed  that  the  common  black  ant  preys  upon  the  egg.  I  know  of  none  in- 
terfering with  the  worm  or  chrysalis. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Mulberry,  Ala. 

Ants  are  numerous  at  times  and  seem  to  feed  on  them. — [Andrew  Jay,  Jayville. 

I  have  seen  the  ants  at  work  on  the  egg  and  larva.— [J.  F.  Culver,  Union  Springs, 
Ala. 


184  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

Ants  on  the  egg  and  larva,  but  the  eggs  are  so  much  more  numerous  than  the  ants 
that  the  eggs  arc  not  missed. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Snowdown,  Ala. 

The  small  red  ant. — [Woebomc  Young,  Magnolia,  Ark. 

The  ant  preys  upon  the  egg  and  worm  to  a  certain  extent.— [William  A.  Harris, 
Isabella,  Ga. 

Ants  of  many  kinds  are  found  preying  on  them  in  good  weather,  but  not  in  bad,  and 
this  is  the  reason  given  why  the  worm  increases  so  much  faster  in  rainy  wet  weather 
than  In  dry  and  fair  weather.  The  cotton  fields  have  many  enemies  of  the  worm  out 
in  fair  weather  devouring  eggs  and  worms,  but  rain  and  rust  drive  these  enemies 
back  to  their  retreats,  and  the  worm  breeds  without  let  or  hinderance. — [Douglas  M. 
Hamilton,  Saint  Francisville,  La. 

Of  late  years  the  ant  has  proved  to  be  the  greatest  enemy  both  to  the  egg  and  larva. 
I  entertain  the  belief  that  they  will  ultimately  destroy  the  worm  should  it  prove  to  be 
indigenous  rather  than  of  foreign  origin.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  Bayou  Sara,  La. 

Tne  common  ant  maintains  an  equilibrium  when  it  is  not  too  wet.  The  ant  will 
destroy  the  eggs  unless  the  rainy  weather  keeps  it  in  its  retreat.  This  is  the  reason 
that  a  dry  season  is  never  a  caterpillar  one. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnesville  County, 
North  Carolina. 

The  family  in  its  different  stages  are  preyed  upon  by  ants. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  Denison's 
Landing,  Tenn. 

Tho  little  black  ant  will  devour  the  eggs.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin  County,  Texas. 

Some  species  of  the  ant  will  prey  upon  the  egg. — [O.  H.  P.  Garret,  Brenham,  Tex. 

Ants.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Hempstead,  Tex. 

Ants. — [Samuel  Davis,  Greenville,  Tex. 

Ants  prey  upon  the  egg,  larva,  and  chrysalis. — [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Moscow,  Tex. 

Nothing  but  the  small  ant.— [S.  Harbert,  Alleyton,  Tex. 

la  dry  weather  the  little  ants  that  are  to  be  found  everywhere  prey  upon  them  when 
they  get  knocked  off  on  the  ground ;  or  when  the  snn  drives  the  ants  up  the  stalk  for 
protection  they  attack  the  chrysalis,  &c. — [Natt  Holman,  Fayette  County,  Texas. 

Ants.— [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Millheim,  Austin  County,  Tex. 

Ants  are  their  common  enemy. — [George  W.  Hazard,  Rutledge,  Ala. 

In  addition  to  this  testimony  to  the  efficacy  of  the  ants,  we  will  add  that  of  Mr. 
Trclease,  who  says : 

From  their  great  numbers  and  indefatigable  industry,  ants  are  probably  among  the 
most  important  of  the  enemies  of  the  cotton-caterpillar.  Individuals  of  many  species 
swarm  everywhere  on  the  cotton  plants,  to  which  they  are  attracted  night  and  day  by 
Aphides  and  nectar.  On  many  cotton  leaves  there  are  places  where  some  larva  has 
oaten  the  parenchyma.of  the  lower  surface,  but  the  most  careful  search  fails  to  dis- 
cover the  larva.  Though  not  invariably  so,  these  places  are  often  eaten  by  very  young 
larvae  of  Aletia,  and  as  these  are  not  to  be  found,  it  looks  as  though  they  had  been  re- 
moved by  some  enemy,  probably  ants,  though  I  have  never  seen  ants  attack  very  small 
caterpillars.  In  July  a  number  of  caterpillars  were  collected  in  the  bottom-land,  to 
which  they  were  principally  couiined  at  that  time,  and  placed  on  cotton  growing  in 
dry,  sandy  soil,  care  being  taken  to  see  that  there  were  no  ants  on  this  cotton  when 
the  larva  was  placed  on  it,  for  my  insects  in  breeding-jars  in  the  house  had  suffered 
so  much  from  the  depredations  of  ants  that  I  was  always  afraid  of  their  attacking 
larvae  that  I  wanted  to  study  in  the  field  ;  and  these  particular  caterpillars  had  been 
removed  to  the  cotton  indicated  because  I  wished  to  make  observations  on  their  habits, 
and  wanted  them  as  near  the  house  as  might  be,  which  at  that  time  the  only  larvae  to 
be  found  in  numbers  were  about  a  mile  from  where  I  was  living.  Within  two  hours 
of  the  time  of  placing  them  on  this  cotton,  each  of  these  larvae  was  found  by  several 
ants,  and  these  soon  collected  numbers  of  their  fellows,  whose  combined  attacks  so 
worried  the  larvae  that  they  threw  themselves  from  the  plants  and  were  soon  killed 
and  carried  off  by  their  small  but  persistent  enemies.  On  several  other  occasions 
partly  grown  caterpillars  were  killed  and  carried  off  in  this  way  by  this  species  and  a 


ANTS   VS.    COTTON-WORMS.  185 

red  ant,  yet  I  never  saw  ants  attack  them  on  the  plant  excepting  when  I  had  thus 
placed  them  on  ridge-cotton  for  purposes  of  study ;  but  when  creeping  over  the  ground, 
as  they  do  after  eating  up  the  foliage  of  the  plant  on  which  they  were  born,  if  not  full 
grown,  hundreds  of  caterpillars  were  attacked  by  these  ants  and  killed.  I  have  never 
seen  more  than  one  species  of  ant  attacking  any  individual  caterpillar,  either  on  the 
plant  or  on  the  ground. 

Mr.  Trelease  further  remarks,  in  speaking  of  the  enemies  of  the  chrysalis : 

In  the  latter  part  of  July  several  Aletia,  just  about  to  pupate,  were  taken  from  the 
swamp  where  they  were  found,  and,  with  leaves  webbed  about  them,  they  were  trans- 
ferred to  cotton  on  dry  soil  near  the  house,  where  they  were  tied  by  their  leaves  to 
the  petioles  of  this  cotton;  my  object  in  placing  them  there  being  to  determine  the 
length  of  the  pupa  state.  The  same  day  they  shed  their  last  larva  skins  and  this  left 
them  in  an  almost  defenseless  condition  till  the  pupa  skin  should  become  firm  and 
tough.  About  twenty-four  hours  after  this  moult  they  were  again  visited,  and  were 
found  covered  with  red  ants,  which  had  killed  and  partly  eaten  them  all,  though  they 
were  on  different  plants,  and  care  was  taken  to  see  that  there  were  no  ants  on  the  cot- 
ton when  the  larvae  were  placed  there. 

Concerning  the  destruction  of  eggs  by  ants  he  has  made  no  positive  observations,  but 
states  his  opiuion  in  the  following  words: 

Similarly,  ants  of  quite  a  number  of  species  frequent  the  cotton  plant,  whither  they 
are  attracted  both  by  the  sweet  excretion  of  Aphides  and  by  the  nectar  copiously  ex- 
creted from  the  foliar  and  involucral  glands  of  the  plant,  and  although  I  never  saw 
them  molest  the  eggs  of  Aletia,  I  believe  that  they  do  so. 

Family  FOKMICIDAE. 

Ants  without  a  sting.  A  single  node  upon  the  petiole.  No  contraction  after  the 
first  joint  of  the  abdomen  proper.  The  nymphs  sometimes  inclosed  within  cocoons, 
sometimes  naked. 

Sub-family  DOLICHODERIDAE,  Forel. 

Zoit.  fur  wiss.  Zool.,  xxx,  supl.,  and  Etudes  Myrmecologiques,  Bull.    Soc.  Vaudoise,  Sci.  Natur, 
1878,  p.  364. 

Pedicel  with  a  single  node.  The  abdomen  is  not  narrowed  after  its  first  segment. 
Nymphs  always  naked.  Nests  commonly  made  in  the  ground.  Antennae  12  joints. 

Genus  DORYMYRMEX,  Mayr. 

The  maxillary  palps  6-jointed,  the  labial  palps  4-joiuted.  The  shield  a  little  pro- 
longed between  the  insertions  of  the  antennae.  The  clypeal  fosse  is  united  to  the  an- 
tennal  fosse.  The  frontal  area  is  triangular,  short  but  distinct.  The  scale  of  the 
petiole  vertical,  smooth.  The  chitinous  skin  elastic.  All  the  spurs  pectinated.  The 
workers  have  nearly  always  a  tuft  of  long  hairs  under  the  head,  as  in  the  genus  Pogo- 
noinyrinex.  The  mesothorax  is  a  little  compressed.  There  is  a  cone  or  toothed  pro- 
jection between  the  posterior  or  basal  face  and  the  anterior  face  of  the  metanotum. 
The  spurs  are  pectinated.  Ocelli  are  wanting. 

No.  1.  D.  insanus,  [Buckley]. 

1866.  Formica  insana  [Buckley],  Trans.  Am.  Entom.  Society  Philadelphia,  p.  165. 
1866.  Erratic  ant,  Lincecum,  Proc.  Acad.  Nat.  Sci.  Phila.,  p.  — . 
1875.  Dorymyrmex pyramicus,  Korton,  "Wheeler's  Hep.  Geo.  Expl.,  Zool.,  p.  734. 
1879.  Dorymyrmex  insanus  |McCookj,  Agricultural  Ant  of  Texas,  p.  197. 

This  species  may  prove  to  be  D.  pyramicus,  Rog.  (Prenolepis  pyramica),  as  suggested 
by  Norton,  or  more  probably  a  variety  of  the  same. 
Buckley's  description  is  sufficiently  indefinite,  but  two  examples  of  his  types  in  the 


186 


EEPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 


collection  of  the  American  Entomological  Society,  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,  Phila- 
delphia, are  identical  with  the  specimens  sent. 
Worker.     Length,  -J-  inch. 

Color.— Abdomen,  tip  of  scale  and  cone,  femur,  tibia,  vertex,  and  f  agellum,  black  or 
blackish.  The  face  (except  vertex),  scape,  tarsus,  thorax,  brown  or  brownish.  There 
is  no  tuft  of  hair  beneath  the  fa  ce.  They  were  found  by  Mr.  Coinstock  actually  destroy 
ing  the  cotton-worm. 

D.  insanus  was  collected  by  me  in  Texas  (1877),  and  a  variety  quite  akin  to  it  in  Col- 
orado, 1879.  In  the  former  State,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Austin,  it  was  found  near  or 

on  the  flat  circular  disks  of  the  agri- 
cultural ant,  Pogonomyrmex  barbatus. 
In  Colorado  the  nests  were  found  in 
great  numbers  in  the  Garden  of  the 
gods  and  vicinity,  upon  the  clear 
space  surrounding  the  gravel-covered 
mounds  of  Pogonomyrmex  occidenlalis, 
Cresson,  which,  like  its  Texas  con- 
gener, is  a  harvesting  species.  Two, 
three,  and  four  of  the  former  nests  or 
openings  would  be  placed  upon  the 
latter.  The  external  architecture  of 
D.  insanus  is  simply  a  moundlet  of 
sand,  two  to  four  inches  in  diameter, 
gathered  around  a  small  opening  into 
the  ground  like  the  familiar  nests  of 
Lasius  flavus,  the  little  yellow  ant 
which  burrows  in  such  multitudea 
in  our  garden  walks  and  lawns. 

In  action  the  erratic  ant  is  vigorous 
and  active.    It  is  remarkably  cour- 
FlG.  35.— Dorymynnex  insanus.  ageous,  and  was  often  observed  by  me 

to  attack  successfully  the  Occidental  ant.  In  one  case  a  small  colony  of  erratics  pushed 
up  its  gate  in  the  midst  of  one  of  the  principal  thoroughfares  of  a  large  occidental  formi- 
cary. Thereafter  the  little  erratics  flung  themselves  upon  nearly  every  occidental  that 
passed  with  such  vigor  and  abandon  of  courage  as  to  finally  compel  the  latter,  though 
greatly  superior  in  size  and  armed  with  a  formidable  sting,  to  give  up  the  gangway,  and 
excavate  an  opening  beyond  the  erratic  boundaries.  One  remarkable  example  of  this 
especially  attracted  my  attention.  Upon  the  circumjacent  clearing  of  an  occidental  nest 
which  was  being  opened  for  the  study  of  internal  architecture,  there  were  three  nests  or 
gate- ways  of  an  erratic  colony.  My  invasion  of  the  formicary  had,  as  is  usual,  aroused 
the  occidentals  to  the  highest  pitch  of  belligerent  fury.  They  attacked  me  with  so 
many  and  painful  stings  as  quite  to  sicken  me.  Yet  the  erratics  freely  assaulted  these 
irate  insects  as  they  ran  hither  and  thither  whenever  they  trespassed  upon  their  bor- 
ders, and  invariably  drove  them  away.  If  such  intrepid  little  warriors  were  to  devote 
their  atttention  to  killing  cotton-worms  they  would  doubtless  do  good  execution. 

The  genus  and  probably  this  species  is  widely  spread  throughout  tropical  and  sub- 
tropical America.  It  feeds  upon  the  sweet  exudations  of  plants,  galls,  and  sweet  excre- 
tions of  the  Aphis ;  but,  like  most  ants,  is  fond  of  the  juices  of  insects. 

No.  2.  D.  flavus,  n.  var. 

Worker.    Length,  £  inch. 

This  variety  is  identical  with  insanus,  except  in  the  color,  which  is  a  uniform  honey- 
yellow,  and  the  contour  of  the  thorax.  The  apex  of  the  abdomen  and  the  flagellum 
of  the  antennae  are  tipped  with  a  blackish  hue.  The  variety  appears  to  be  quite  per- 
manent, the  distinction  holding  in  a  number  (25  or  30)  of  specimens  examined.  The 
cone  is  evidently  higher  than  the  thorax.  There  is  no  tuft  under  the  face. 

Habitat,  United  States.    Southern  States. 


ANTS   VS.   COTTON-WORMS, 


187 


Genus  IRIDOMYRMEX,  Mayr. 

Verhdl.  d.  k.  k.  zool.-bot.  Ges.  in  Wien,  Bd.  xii,  1862,  Z.  702. 

The  workers  vary  very  little,  and  only  in  size.  The  worker  and  the  male  are  of  the 
same  size ;  the  female  is  much  larger.  The  maxillary  palps  have  6  joints,  the  labial 
palps  4  joints.  The  clypeus  is  a  little  prolonged  between  the  insertions  of  the  an- 
tennae. The  clypeal  fosse  is  joined  with  the  antennal  fosse.  The  frontal  area  is 
triangular,  indistinct.  The  scale  of  the  petiole 
is  vertical,  unarmed.  The  sculpture  of  the 
body  is  very  fine ;  the  chitinous  skin  is  elastic 
and  not  brittle,  as  is  the  case  for  the  most 
part  in  other  ants;  all  the  spurs  are  pecti- 
nated. 

No.  3.  I.  McCooki,  FOREL,  in  lift. 

This  ant  is  a  small  yellow  ant,  about  three 
thirty-seconds  of  an  inch  in  length.  Dr.  Forel 
refers  to  it  in  his  Etudes  Myrmtcologiques  for 
1878,  p.  382,  and  reference  is  also  made  to  it 
in  my  Agricultural  Ant  of  Texas,  pp.  202-3,  302. 
I  found  numbers  of  this  species  traveling  in 
long  lines  across  or  near  to  the  nest  of  the 
agricultural  ant.  Usually  their  route  was  es- 
tablished upon  blades  of  grass  growing  on  the 
nests  or  along  low  tufts  of  grass  on  the  mar- 
gin. They  traveled  in  single,  or  "  Indian  "  file, 
one  behind  the  other.  They  appear  to  be  on 
friendly  terms  with  their  large  neighbors. 
The  specimens  sent  me  in  alcohol  were  taken 
in  the  act-of  attacking  the  cotton- worm. 

Subfamily  MYRMICIDAE,  SMITH. 

Ants  having  a  sting,  except  with  the  males. 
Two  nodes  or  joints  upon  the  petiole.  The 
nymphs  always  naked. 

Catalogue  Brit.  Hymenoptera,  1851. 

Genus  CREMATOGASTER,  Lund. 

The  second  joint  of  the  petiole  articulates 

upon  the  superior  face  of  the  first  segment  of      FIG.  36.— Crematogaster  lineolata. 
the  abdomen.     Abdomen   is  cordiform,   flat- 
tened above,  rounded  below,  and  pointed  at  the  extremity.    The  maxillary  palps 
have  5,  the  labial  palps  3  joints.     The  antennae  have  11  joints.     The  metanotum  is 
furnished  with  two  spines. 


No.  4.  C.  lineolata,  Say. 

1836.  Myrmica  lineolata,  Say,  Boston  Journal  Nat.  Hist.,  voL  i,  p.  290. 

I860.  Oecodoma  (Atta)  arborea,  Buckley,  Trans.  Am.  Ento.  Soc.  Phil.,  p.  349. 

18G6.  Crematogaster  lineolata,  Mayr,  Verb,  zool.-bot.  Ges.  in  "Wien,  xvi,  p.  901. 

Worker  major.     Length,  &  inch  (Figs.  4,  5,  6). 
Worker  minor.    Length,  i  inch. 


188  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

Color. — The  abdomen  is  black,  shining,  except,  at  the  base  underneath,  which  is  red- 
dish brown ;  the  petiole,  thorax,  flagellum,  and  tarsus  yellowish  brown ;  the  head 
blackish  at  the  vertex,  as  also  the  legs,  except  the  tarsus.  The  body  is  lightly  pube- 
scent, the  abdomen  being  sparsely  provided  with  hairs.  The  ant  when  excited  has  the 
habit  of  turning  its  abdomen  up,  and  even  bending  it  over  the  thorax,  as  in  Fig.  9. 
The  favorite  nestingplaceisunderstonesor  underneath  and  within  the  decayed  matter 
of  old  logs  and  stumps.  This  material  is  sometimes  prepared  by  the  ant  as  a  paper- 
like  pulp,  and  arranged  into  cells  and  chambers,  which  are  attached  to  the  sur- 
faces of  the  logs.  This  ant  is  widely  distributed  throughout  the  United  States ;  is 
abundant  in  the  Middle  States. 

Texas.     Queen,  Figs.  7,  8. 

No.  5.  Crematogaster  clara. 

1870.  C.  elara,  Mayr,  Verhandl  der  k.  k.  zool.-l>ot.  Vereins,  Wien,  p.  990. 
1866.  Oecodoma  bicolor,  Buckley,  Trans.  Am.  Ento.  Soc.,  Phila. 

Buckley's  name  has  the  priority  over  Mayrs,  but  as  Smith  had  published  a  species 
under  the  same  name  (Proceed.  Linn.  Soc.,  1860,  p.  109)  several  years  before  Buckley's 
description,  the  name  given  by  Mayr  is  that  by  which  the  insect  is  properly  known. 

The  habits  of  the  ant  are  probably  the  same  as  those  of  C.  lineolata.  It  was  found 
in  the  stem  of  the  cotton  plant,  but  was  not  observed  destroying  the  worm. 

Texas.    E.  A.  Schwarz. 

Genus  SOLENOPSIS,  Westwood. 
Ann.  and  Mag.  Nat.  Hist.,  i841. 

Mandibles  enlarged  at  the  extremity,  and  having  the  terminal  margin  d^ntated. 
Antennae  10-jointed ;  the  two  last  joints  very  large,  and  together  form  a  club.  The 
maxillary  and  labial  palps  have  each  two  joints.  Metanotum  without  teeth  or 
spines.  The  clypeus  has  two  longitudinal  ridges.  The  sting  very  large. 

No.  6.  Solenopsis  xyloni,  n.  sp.    (?) 

Worker  major.  Length,  £  inch,  Fig.  10 ;  side  view  of  same,  Fig.  11 ;  view  of  head  en- 
larged, Fig.  12.  The  head,  body,  nodes,  and  abdomen  are  of  a  dark  claret-brown  color, 
glossy,  covered  with  stout  hairs.  The  flagellum  of  antennae  and  the  tarsi  are  a 
lighter  color. 

Worker  minor.    Length,  -^  inch.     Color  as  in  the  worker  major. 

Female.  Length,  more  than  £  inch  (9mm),  Fig.  12.  The  body  is  of  a  uniform  amber 
color.  The  single  specimen  is  unwinged. 

The  largest  number  of  specimens  sent  belong  to  this  species,  but  no  habits  are  noted 
except  that  the  ant  kills  the  cotton-worm.  In  one  bottle  the  caterpillar  is  preserved, 
with  a  number  of  the  dead  ants  still  clinging  to  it  by  their  mandibles.  Solenopsis  is  a 
mining  ant,  and  lives  in  nests  made  in  the  groun<5.  Some  species  of  the  genus  oc- 
casionally place  their  homes  within  or  very  near  the  bounds  of  other  species  of  ants. 
S.  fugax,  for  example,  according  to  Dr.  Forcl  (Swiss  Ants,  p.  233),  lives,  without 
danger,  in  the  very  center  of  the  formicaries  of  Formica  fusca,  Polyuryus  rufescens,  Tetra- 
morium  caespitum,  &c.  They  are  always  enemies  of  their  hosts. 

Genus  MONOMORIUM. 

1 
No.  7.  Monomorium  carbonarium,  SMITH. 

Catalogue  Brit.  Mus.,  nymenoptera.,  Fonnicidae,  p- 127. 

Worker.    Length,  -fa  inch. 

This  is  a  small,  black,  shining  ant,  and  was  taken  in  the  act  of  killing  the  cotton- 


PAKASITES  OF  THE  COTTON  WORM. 


189 


worm,  a  specimen  of  which  (in  alcohol)  was  fairly  black  with  the  hordes  of  tiny  em- 
mets which  clung  to  it. 

NOTE. — I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  Auguste  Forel  for  valuable  aid  in  the  determination  of 
the  above  species.  My  own  studies  of  ants  having  been  heretofore  chielly  directed  to 
their  habits  and  structure,  I  sent  examples  to  Dr.  Forel,  and  received  an  answer  barely 
in  time  for  use  in  verifying  and  correcting  proof-sheets.  I  cordially  acknowledge  his 
friendly  assistance. 

The  specimens  of  Dorymyrmex  insanus,  sent  Dr.  Forel  regards  as  D.  pyramicus,  Roger, 
Berlin  Ento.  Zeit.,  1883,  p.  1860.  Solenopsls  xyloni  he  believes  to  be  S.geminata,  Fabr. 
I  have  nevertheless  allowed  my  name 

to  stand  provisionally,  until  further  _    1.  » 

examination,  for  the  following  reason, 
among  others.  The  specimens  sent 
me  by  Mr.  Comstock  were  quite  nu- 
merous, and  were  all  workers,  major 
and  minor.  Neither  these  nor  speci- 
mens from  Texas  in  the  American  En- 
tomological Society  collection  had  ex- 
amples of  the  large-headed  soldier 
caste,  which  belongs  to  S.  geminata, 
specimens  of  which  I  have  from 
Florida. 

ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Fig.  35  (a).  Dorymyrmex  insanus. 
Dorsal  view,  enlarged. 

Fig.  35  (&).  D.  insanus.  Side  view, 
enlarged.  The  natural  length  is  indi- 
cated by  the  line  beneath  the  figure. 

Fig.  35  (c).  D.  insanus.  View  of 
head. 

Fig.  36  (a).  Crematogaster  lineolata. 

Fig.  36  (6).  Side  view  of  same. 

Fig.  36  (c).  Same;  view  of  head. 

Fig.  36.  (d).  Same ;  queen ;  side  view. 

Fig.  36  (e).  Same;  wing  of  queen. 


FIGS.  37  and  38.— Solenopsis  xyloni. 
Enlarged. 


Fig.  36  (/).  Same ;  view  of  insect  when  excited,  with  abdomen  turned  np. 
Fig.  37  (a).  Solenopsis  xyloni.    Dorsal  view,  enlarged. 
Fig.  37  (&).  Same;  side  view. 
Fig.  37  (c).  Same ;  view  of  head. 
Fig.  38.  Same  of  queen ;  side  view. 

PARASITES. 

The  abundance  of  the  true  parasites  of  the  cotton-worin,  and  the  num- 
ber in  which  they  occur,  renders  their  consideration  of  the  highest  prac- 
tical importance. 

Taking  into  consideration  the  number  and  variety  of  these  friends  of 
the  planter,  and  the  way  in  which  they  may  make  themselves  obvious  to 
every  one  who  tries  to  work  out  the  life  history  of  the  cotton- worm,  it 
seems  very  strange  that  several  recent  writers  should  have  entirely 
overlooked  their  presence.  Mr.  Grote,  in  his  paper  before  the  Ameri- 
can Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  stated  that  he  had 


190  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

never  been  able  to  observe  any  parasites,  although  he  admitted  that 
such  might  exist;  and  Professor  Kiley,  in  the  1878  circular  of  this 
department,  states  the  fact  that  no  enemies  of  the  cotton -worm  have 
hitherto  been  reported.  We  mention  these  two  instances  in  particular, 
because  the  undoubted  ability  of  these  naturalists  renders  their  state- 
ments all  the  more  singular.  The  fact  is  that  not  only  were  parasites 
well  known  to  many  observers  throughout  the  South,  but  no  less  than 
six  accounts  had  been  published  with  tolerable  popular  descriptions  of 
Plmpla  conquisitor  (a  large  ichneumon  which  extensively  infests  the  last 
brood  of  the  worms,  issuing  from  the  chrysalis  in  midwinter  or  early 
spring),  and  two  very  fair  figures  had  also  been  published. 

In  1847  Dr.  D.  B.  Grorham,  of  Bayou  Sara,  La.,  in  the  same  paper  in 
which  he  proposed  the  migration  theory,  drew  up  a  description  of  "the 
yellow-banded  ichneumon,"  as  we  shall  call  P.  conquisitor  in  this  report. 
This  was,  as  we  think,  the  first  notice  of  any  parasite.  Dr.  Gorham's 
description  was  as  follows : 

Let  us  take  a  pocketful  of  these  home  and  place  them  beneath  tumblers,  aud  wait 
patiently  to  see  what  they  will  produce.  If  I  had  found  a  treasure  my  delight  could 
not  have  been  greater  than  that  I  experienced  at  the  idea  of  unraveling  the  mystery. 
But  man  is  prone  to  disappointment,  as  we  shall  soon  sec.  About  the  15th  of  Novem- 
ber the  insect  appeared,  but,  mirabile  dictu,  as  different  from  the  cotton-fly  as  it  is  pos- 
sibly to  suppose  one  insect  could  differ  from  another.  Ifc  belonged  altogether  to  a 
different  family,  a  description  of  which  I  give  as  follows: 

Antennas  filiform,  black,  six  lines  in  length.  Palpi  four ;  two  external  and  two  in- 
termediate, the  external  white,  twice  the  length  of  the  other  two,  in  shape  angular,  the 
angle  projecting  externally.  The  two  middle  are  straight,  scarcely  perceptible  over 
a  strong  light;  they  are  of  a  dark  color.  Wings,  four;  hymenopterous,  incumbent, 
extending  to  and  exactly  even  with  the  end  of  the  tail ;  shape  of  the  wings,  which  are 
small  and  extremely  delicate  and  thin,  is  like  that  of  a  fan.  Front  legs  half  the  length 
of  the  posterior  of  a  uniform  orange  color:  the  intermediate  legs  very  little  longer 
than  the  anterior*;  the  thighs  of  a  deep  orange  color,  the  rest  of  the  leg  annulated  with 
black  and  white,  the  rings  being  larger  than  those  of  the  intermediate.  The  trunk 
is  of  a  uniform  shining  black,  as  would  be  the  upper  surface  of  the  abdomen  also  were 
it  not  for  the  very  narrow  white  bauds  which  connect  the  black  scales  together,  giving 
to  the  abdomen  an  annulated  appearance;  these  white  lines  do  not  encircle  the  abdo- 
men, but  terminate  uniformly  on  the  sides.  On  the  under  surface  of  the  abdomen 
these  white  rings  again  commence,  which  are  much  larger  than  those  on  the  upper 
surface,  causing  the  abdomen  to  look  almost  white.  The  tail  terminates  in  a  bifurca- 
ted sheath  inclosing  a  long  blunt  sting,  projecting  considerably  beyond  the  tail,  and 
forming  a  very  prominent  feature  in  the  general  figure  of  the  insect.  This  is  a  small 
Blender  insect,  much  longer  than  the  honey-bee,  but  not  so  thick. 

Now,  it  is  evident  from  its  specific  character,  as  well  as  from  its  parasitic  nature,  this 
insect  belongs  to  that  numerous  class  called  ichneumons,  of  which  there  are  upwards 
of  five  hundred  species.  As  I  am  not  at  present  in  possession  of  any  practical  work 
on  entomology,  I  cannot  determine  the  species  of  this  ichneumon,  but  to  show  that  it 
differs  in  some  respects  from  the  family  to  which  it  belongs,  I  will  quote  a  paragraph 
from  a  work  before  me,  in  which  are  set  forth  some  peculiarities  belonging  to  that 
class  of  insects  as  a  genus : 

The  whole  of  this  singular  genus  have  been  denominated  parasitical  on  account  of 
the  very  extraordinary  manner  in  which  they  provide  for  the  future  support  of  their 
young.  The  fly  feeds  on  the  honey  of  flowers,  and  when  about  to  lay  her  eggs,  perfo- 
rates the  body  of  some  other  insect  or  its  larvae  with  its  sting  or  instrument  at  the  end  of 


PARASITES  OF  THE  COTTON -WORM.  191 

the  body,  and  then  deposits  them.  The  eggs  in  a  few  days  hatch,  and  the  young  larvae, 
which  resemble  minute  white  maggots,  nourish  themselves  with  the  juices  of  their 
foster-parent,  which,  however,  continues  to  move  about  and  feed  until  near  the  time 
of  its  changing  into  a  chrysalis,  when  the  larvae  of  the  ichneumon  creep  out  by  per- 
forating the  skin  in  various  places,  and  each  spinning  itself  up  in  a  small  oval  silken 
case,  changes  into  a  chrysalis,  and  after  a  certain  period  they  emerge  in  the  state  of 
complete  ichneumons. 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  is  a  peculiarity  attached  to  this  ichneumon  not  included 
in  the  above  description,  that  of  appropriating  the  chrysalis  as  well  as  the  larvae  of 
other  insects  to  the  use  of  the  young.  All  ichneumons  that  I  ever  read  of  spin  their 
own  chrysalis,  but  this  is  the  prince  of  parasites,  for  not  content  with  eating  the  sub- 
stance of  his  neighbor,  he  seizes  also  on  his  house.  So  far  as  I  have  read  concerning 
this  curious  family  of  insects,  this  is  a  nondescript. 

Thus  is  answered  the  question  why  the  cotton-fly  did  not  again  eat  up  the  scant 
foliage  which  subsequently  appeared  on  the  stalks.  This  little  usurper  goes  forth  in 
search  of  "  whom  he  may  devour,"  and  as  soon  as  he  finds  a  house  built  and  well  pro- 
visioned, he  seizes  upon  it  for  his  posterity,  which  he  does  in  the  following  manner : 
When  he  finds  a  cotton-worm  he  pierces  it  with  the  instrument  with  which  its  tail  is 
armed,  and  deposits  an  egg.  The  cotton- worm  soon  spins  itself  up  into  a  case,  there  to 
await  the  period  of  its  perfection,  which  never  arrives,  for  soon  the  egg  of  the  ichneu- 
mon hatches  and  falls  to  devouring  his  helpless  companion.  This  work  of  extermina- 
tion continues  until  there  is  not  a  vestige  of  the  cotton- worm  left.  1  venture  to  say 
while  I  am  now  writing  (1st  of  December)  there  is  not  an  egg,  chrysalis,  or  fly  in  the 
confines  of  the  United  States. 

In  1851  Mr.  Thomas  Affleck,  late  of  Brenham,  Tex.,  then  of  Washing- 
ton, Miss.,  whom  we  have  had  frequent  occasion  to  refer  to  in  this  re- 
port, in  his  Southern  Rural  Almanac  for  that  year  figured  an  ichneumon 
parasite  of  the  cotton- worm.  It  is  impossible  to  say  whether  the  yellow- 
banded  ichneumon  or  the  ring-legged  Pimpla  is  meant  by  this  figure. 
In  the  text  Mr.  Affleck  says : 

We  owed  our  exemption  during  the  season  of  1848  to  the  destruction  of  the  cotton- 
moth  when  in  the  chrysalis  state  by  an  ichneumon,  the  insect  here  represented.  From 
many  scores  of  chrysalides  which  we  had  collected  for  observation  these  ichneumons 
issued,  one  from  each.  The  parent  had  deposited  her  egg  within  the  shell  of  the  chrysa- 
lis, where  it  hatched,  preyed  upon  the  insect  within,  until  time  to  undergo  its  own 
transformations. 

The  continued  enormous  production  of  cotton  caused  the  excessive  multiplication 
of  the  cotton-moth,  with  whose  increase  multiplied  the  ichneumon — a  precious  provis- 
ion of  the  beneficent  Creator,  "who  doeth  all  things  well." 

Again,  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture  report  for  1855,  Mr.  Glover 
figured  and  described  P.  conquisitor,  although  he  attempted  to  give  it  no 
name.  He  says  (p.  Ill) : 

Some  chrysalides  of  the  cotton-caterpillar,  which  had  been  preserved  during  the 
autumn  of  1855  as  an  experiment  to  see  whether  they  would  live  until  the  following 
spring,  having  been  hatched  out  prematurely  by  the  heat  of  the  room  in  which  they 
were  kept,  two  ichneumon  flies  were  produced  of  a  slender  shape  and  about  half  an 
inch  in  length.  The  abdomen  or  body  of  the  female  was  black,  and  marked  with  seven 
light-colored,  yellowish,  narrow  rings  around  it ;  the  head  is  black,  with  the  eye* 
brown,  the  antenna?  long,  jointed,  and  nearly  black ;  on  the  head  were  three  ocelli ; 
the  thorax  was  blaok ;  the  wings  transparent,  of  a  rather  yellowish  tinge,  veined  with 
black,  and  having  a  distinct  black  mark  on  the  outer  margin  of  the  upper  pair;  the 
first  joint  of  the  hind  leg  was  comparatively  large,  thick,  and  of  a  brownish  color; 


192  REPORT   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

tlio  thighs  were  also  brown;  the  tibiae  black,  with  a  broad  white  band  in  the  middle  ; 
the  tarsi  were  white,  tipped  with  black ;  the  ovipositor  protruded  more  than  the  tenth 
of  an  inch.  The  male  presented  much  the  same  appearance  as  the  female,  but  was 
more  slender  in  form. 

The  figure  given  is  not  so  good  as  this  excellent  description  would 
warrant  us  in  expecting,  but  this  cannot  be  said  to  be  any  fault  of  Mr. 
Glover.  The  next  published  account  of  parasites  is  not  until  1867,  and 
is  again  by  Mr.  Glover.  He  says,  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture  re- 
port for  that  year  (p.  61) : 

The  cotton-caterpillar  is  also  destroyed  by  a  small  yellow  and  black  banded  ichneumon 
fly,  which  deposits  its  eggs  in  the  worm.  This  egg-hatching  produces  a  footless  grub, 
which  feeds  in  the  body  of  the  caterpillar,  at  first  avoiding  all  the  vital  parts  and  de- 
vouring the  fatty  matter  alone,  leaving  the  larva  with  strength  to  spin  its  cocoon  and 
change  into  a  chrysalis,  with  its  internal  foe  still  in  its  body.  The  grub  then,  after 
devouring  the  remainder  of  the  interior,  changes  into  a  pupa,  and  finally  emerges 
from  the  dried  chrysalis  skin  as  a  full-formed,  four-winged  fly,  somewhat  resembling 
a  very  diminutive  wasp. 

Dr.  D.  P.  Phares,  in  his  lecture  before  the  Farmers'  Club  of  Wood- 
ville,  Miss.,*  from  which  we  have  quoted  so  frequently  already,  mentions 
Dr.  Gorhain's  paper  incidentally,  and  also  mentions  his  views  on  para- 
sitism— enough  to  put  it  again  in  print  and  to  make  it  an  additional 
source  of  wonder  to  us  that  later  writers  knew  nothing  of  it.  Dr.  Phares 
says: 

Many  years  ago  the  late  Dr.  Gorham,  of  Louisiana,  published  his  observations  of 
the  chenilles  made  during  the  then  current  year.  Having  collected  a  number  of  chrys- 
alides, he  took  them  home  and  watched  them  closely  to  see  the  cotton-moth  come 
forth  from  the  pupa  case.  But,  to  his  astonishment,  instead  of  the  Anomis,  a  swarm 
of  ichneumon  flies  came  out — not  one  cotton-moth  in  the  entire  lot.  In  his  new-born 
joy  and  earnest  desire  to  cheer  the  desponding  cotton-planter,  he  speedily  proclaimed 
through  the  press  the  results  of  what  he  deemed  a  great  discovery ;  that  henceforth 
the  cotton  crop-was  safe ;  the  cotton-caterpillars  were  done  for ;  they  could  never  seri- 
ously injure  another  crop ;  the  ichneumon  fly  had  destroyed  them  all. 

Another  account  of  parasitism  was  published  by  Mr.  William  Jones, 
the  senior  editor  of  the  Southern  Cultivator,  in  the  March,  1868,  num- 
ber of  that  journal.  He  says  (speaking  of  the  hibernation  of  the  cotton- 
worm) : 

About  the  middle  of  February  we  visited  the  same  field  again.  A  majority  of 
chrysalid  cases  (which  were  still  abundant)  we  found  empty,  with  every  indication 
of  the  insect  having  matured  and  escaped.  A  limited  number  we  found  apparently 
unchanged,  and  started  back  rejoicing  that  we  had  been  able  to  replace  those  de- 
stroyed by  the  bird;  but  alas !  upon  accidentally  crushing  one  we  found  within  it  an 
ichneumon,  and  this  proved  to  be  the  case  with  all  we  had  collected.  Some  of  the 
ichneumons  had  completed  their  transformation  and  were  about  to  come  out  as  per- 
fect insects. 

In  addition  to  these  published  accounts  of  parasites,  the  answers  of 
the  correspondents  of  this  department  to  question  Ga  of  the  1878  circu- 
lar show  that  mauy  insect  enemies  of  the  cotton- worm  were  well  known 
throughout  the  South. 

*  Rural  Carolinian,  1869,.  p.  689. 


THE    COTTON-WORM   EGG-PARASITE.  193 

Let  us  now  enter  into  a  detailed  account  of  these  parasites.  Up  to 
the  time  of  the  present  writing  thirteen  distinct  species  parasitic  upon 
the  cotton-worm,  in  one  or  another  of  its  stage,  have  been  bred  in  the 
department.  Of  these,  eight  species  are  hymenopterous  and  five  dipte- 
rous. 

THE  COTTON-WORM  EGG-PARASITE  (Tricliogramma  pretiosa,  Eiley). — 
In  the  latter  part  of  the  summer  of  1878  a  small  lot  of  cotton-worm  eggs 
were  received  at  the  department,  with  which  it  was  proposed  to  deter- 
mine the  time  and  manner  of  hatching,  the  length  of  time  elapsing  be- 
tween the  different  moults  of  the  worm,  and  various  facts  of  that  char- 
acter. The  eggs  were  placed  in  a  glass  breeding-jar,  but  much  more 
than  the  usual  time  seemed  to  elapse  before  the  hatching.  One  morn- 
ing, however,  a  number  of  very  minute  flies,  so  small  as  scarcely  to  be  seen 
with  the  naked  eye,  were  found  flying  around  the  jar,  and  the  eggs  were 
empty.  Here,  then,  was  a  true  egg-parasite,  the  mother  fly  having  laid 
her  egg  within  the  egg  of  the  cotton-moth,  and  her  progeny  having  lived 
and  undergone  its  transformations  within  that  limited  space.  Whether 
more  than  one  parasite  issued  from  a  single  egg  was  not  determined. 
These  parasites  belonged  to  the  great  hymenopterous  family  Clialcididae, 
a  family  composed  of  a  very  great  number  of  parasitic  species,  distin- 
guished by  their  generally  very  minute  size,  brilliant  metallic,  or  varie- 
gated colors,  elbowed  antennae,  nearly  veinless  wings,  and  naked  pupae. 
They  are  parasitic  upon  other  insects  in  their  early  states  j  some,  from 
their  minute  size,  are  reared  within  the  eggs  of  other  insects,  but  the 
majority  infest  larvae  and  pupae.  They  especially  attack  Lepidoptera, 
but  also  attack  species  of  some  of  the  other  orders. 

The  species  under  consideration  is  one  of  remarkable  beauty.  The 
general  color  is  yellow,  with  brilliant  red  eyes.  The  wings  are  very  del- 
icate and  transparent  and  present  prismatic  colors  when  viewed  in  dif- 
ferent lights.  The  wings  are  fringed  with  excessively  fine  hairs  j  their 
surface  is  also  covered  with  still  finer  hairs.  In  length  they  are  only  a 
trifle  more  than  one-hundredth  of  an  inch  (.3mm),  but,  like  all  of  the 
subfamily  to  which  they  belong,  are  very 
active  and  are  great  leapers,  springing 
sometimes  to  a  distance  of  two  or  three 
inches. 

An  allied  species  (Trichogramma  mi- 
nuta)  has  been  reared  from  the  eggs  of 
the  dissippus  butterfly  (Limenitis  dissip- 
puSj  Godt.).  In  this  case  from  four  to  six 
individuals  have  been  reared  from  a  single  FlG-  39.-Trichogramma  miunta. 
egg  of  the  butterfly,  and  this  seems  to  be  about  the  normal  number.  It  is 
probable,  then,  that  more  than  one  parasitic  egg  is  laid  within  the  egg  of 
the  cotton-moth.  Fig.  39  (T.  minuta,  Eiley)  will  give  a  very  good  idea  of 
the  general  appearance  of  the  magnified  insect.  The  cotton- worm  egg- 
13  c  i 


194  REPOET    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

parasite  proved  to  be  a  new  species,  and  consequently  the  following 
scientific  description  of  it  has  been  published  by  Professor  Riley : 

1.  TKICHOGRAMMA  PRETIOSA,  n.  sp.— Length  about  0.3mm.  Yellow,  the  eyes  red, 
the  wings  hyaline.  Head  wider  than  the  thorax ;  antennas  5-jointed,  joints  3  and  4 
in  the  $  forming  an  ovate  mass  and  together  shorter  than  joint  2;  joint  3  large,  thick- 
ened and  very  obliquely  truncate ;  in  the  $  joints  3,  4,  and  5  form  a  more  or  less  dis- 
tinct, elongate  club,  beset  with  long  bristles.  Hairs  of  the  wings  arranged  in  about 
fifteen  lines.  Abdomen  not  so  wide  as  the  thorax,  but  as  long  as  the  head  and  thorax 
together;  in  the  2  the  sides  subparallel,  and  the  apical  joint  suddenly  narrowed  to  a 
point.  Described  from  numerous  specimens  reared  from  eggs  of  Aletia  argillacea. 

Differs  from  Tricliogramma  minuta,  Eiley  (Third  Eep.  Ins.  Mo.,  p.  158,  fig.  72,  $  ),  in 
its  smaller  size  and  uniform  pale  yellovr  color,  and  also  in  the  form  of  the  third  and 
fourth  joints  of  the  antennae.  As  defined  and  figured  by  Wcstwood,  the  antennae  of 
Tricliogramma  are  G-jointed.  Walker,  in  his  "Notes  on  the  Chalcididse,"  pt.  vi,  p.  105, 
employing  Forster's  characters,  says  the  antenna  are  8-jointed;  but  an  examination 
of  the  figure  of  the  type  (Triclwgramma  evanesccns,  1.  c.,  p.  114)  shows  that  one  of  the 
joints  counted  is  the  "annulus"  above  the  scape,  which  I  do  not  consider  to  be  a  true 
joint,  and  that  what  I  have  indicated  as  the  apical  joint,  in  agreement  with  West- 
wood,  is  represented  in  that  figure  as  three  coalesced  joints.  I  have  proposed  the 
generic  name  of  Pentarthrum  for  minuta  in  MS.  now  in  Mr.  Scudder's  hands,  but 
until  the  allied  genera  are  better  characterized  than  at  present  it  is  best  to  use  the 
old  genus  Trichogramma. 

With  the  other  twelve  parasites  the  egg  is  laid  upon  the  larva  of 
Aletia,  and  the  perfect  insect  emerges  either  from  the  larva  or  from  the 
pupa.  Three  of  these  species  belong  to  the  same  family  as  the  egg-para- 
site just  mentioned,  namely,  to  the  Ghalcldidae. 

THE  OVATE  CHALCIS  (Chalcis  ovata,  Say). — This  species  seems  to  be 
one  of  the  most  abundant  parasites  of  the  cotton- worm  in  many  parts  of 
the  South.  It  is  one  of  the  largest  of  its  family,  measuring  over  one- 
fifth  of  an  inch  (5inm)  in  length.  The  glassy  appearance  of  its  abdomen 
and  its  swollen  hind  thighs  gives  it  a  characteristic  look,  and  renders  it 
impossible  to  mistake  it  for  any  other  cotton-worm  parasite.  From  the 
4th  of  August  until  the  10th  of  September  these  little  fellows  were  con- 
tinually issuing  from  the  chrysalides  sent  for  breeding  purposes.  There 
may  have  been  one  brood  previous,  and  there  probably  was  one  later, 
the  chalcid  wintering  in  the  pupa  state  within  the  chrysalis  of  the 
cotton-worm.  The  parent  fly  lays  her  eggs  upon  the  backs  of  nearly 
full-grown  cotton-worms,  probably  more  than  one  egg  upon  each  indi- 
vidual, although  we  have  never  observed  more  than  one  of  these  para- 
sites to  issue  from  a  single  worm.  The  young  larvae  feed  upon  the 
worm's  internal  parts,  choosing  by  preference  the  fatty  tissue,  and  avoid- 
ing all  vital  organs  until  they  become  full-grown.  During  this  time 
the  cotton- worm  has  probably  attained  its  full  growth  and  webbed  up. 
The  parasite  eats  its  host  out  pretty  thoroughly  before  undergoing  its 
own  transformations.  Both  of  its  changes  from  larva  to  pupa  and  from 
pupa  to  fly  are  undergone  within  the  dead  chrysalis  of  the  cotton-worm, 
and  the  perfect  fly  gnaws  a  round  hole  near  the  head  of  the  chrysalis 
to  make  its  exit.  An  examination  of  many  chrysalides  from  which  these 
parasites  have  issued  shows  that  the  hole  of  exit  is  invariably  near  the 


CIRROSPILUS   ESURUS. 


195 


FIG.  40.— Chalcis  ovata. 


head,  and,  upon  breaking  them  open,  the  abdomen  is  found  to  be  filled 
with  excrement  of  the  larva,  and  the  cast-off  skins  of  larva  and  pupa. 
Fig.  40  shows  the  ovate  chalcis  enlarged, 
and  also  a  chrysalis  of  Aletia  pierced  by 
the  exit  of  the  parasite. 

We  can  find  no  published  record  of  the 
fact  of  the  parasitism  of  this  insect  upon 
the  cotton-worm,  and  are  not  aware  that 
it  \vas  bred  prior  to  1878. 

The  following  is  Say's  original  descrip- 
tion of  the  insect : 

C.  OVATA.— Robust,  black ;  feet  yellow,  tbighs  black  at  base,  bead  with  a  golden  re- 
flection. 

Inhabits  Obio  and  Pennsylvania. 

Head  black,  with  golden  sericeous  hair,  which  is  indistinct  on  the  vertex  ;  antennae 
testaceous  beneath  towards  the  tip ;  stethidium  with  dilated,  dense  punctures,  a  little 
sericeous  with  golden  hair;  scale  covering  the  base  of  the  wings,  yellow;  wings 
hyaline ;  nervures  fuscous,  at  base  pale  yellowish ;  feet  bright  yellow ;  basal  half  of 
the  anterior  pair  of  thighs  black  ;  posterior  thighs  smaller  than  the  abdomen,  black, 
with  a  yellow  spot  on  the  tip  above,  dentated  on  the  posterior  edge ;  posterior  tibiae 
pisceous  on  its  basal  incisure ;  terminal  spine  robust,  shorter  than  the  first  tarsal 
joint ;  first  joint  of  the  posterior  coxae  with  a  robust  tooth  above  near  the  tip ;  abdo- 
men subovato,  polished ;  first  segment  nearly  glabrous,  second  segment  hairy  on  each 
side,  remaining  segments  hairy  near  their  tips.  Length  one-fifth  of  an  inch. 

CIRROSPILUS  ESURUS,  Eiley. — Another  chalcid  parasite,  of  much 
smaller  size  than  the  last,  was  reared  in  con- 
siderable numbers  from  the  chrysalides  of  the 
cotton- worm  during  the  summer  of  1878.  It 
proved  to  be  a  new  species  of  the  genus  Cir- 
rospilus,  and  has  been  described  under  the 
specific  name  csurus  by  Professor  Kiley,  in 
a  recent  number  of  the  Canadian  Entomol- 
ogist. His  description  is  as  follows : 

2.  CIRROSPILUS  ESURUS,  n.  sp.— Length  1.5mm. 
Dull  black ;  knees,  tibiae  and  tarsi  yellowish,  the 
posterior  tibiae  sometimes  dusky.  Eyes  with  scat- 
tered,  short  bristles.  Antenna,  of  the  $  9-jointed,  FlG"  41.-Cirrospilus  esurus. 
with  the  joints  of  the  flagellum  subequal  and  beset  with  bristles,  the  ninth  joint  small. 
Antennae  of  the  $  8-jointed,  the  fourth  and  fifth  shorter  than  the  second  and  third, 
the  three  apical  joints  forming  a  club.  Thorax  above  microscopically  punctate  ;  parap- 
sides  distinct  and  elevated ;  scutellum  with  a  longitudinal,  impressed  line  on  each 
side.  Wings  hyaline,  pubescent,  but  the  cilia  short ;  base  of  ulna  uneven  ;  radius  not 
developed.  Abdomen  short  and  sessile,  ovate.  Described  from  numerous  specimens 
reared  from  the  pupa  of  Aletia  argillacea. 

This  species  shows  relationship  with  the  genus  Tetrastichus,  Halliday,  and  may  ul- 
timately be  referred  there.  For  the  present  I  prefer  to  place  it  in  the  older  genus. 

It  is  then  a  little  black  fly  only  about  six-hundredths  of  au  inch  in 
length,  with  yellow  legs.  From  their  small  size,  many  of  them  can  find 
their  sustenance  in  a  single  cotton- worm,  and  many  of  the  adults  were 
bred  from  a  single  chrysalis. 


196  EEPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

UNNAMED  CHALCID  PARASITE. — The  folio  wing  passages  from  my  notes 
concern  a  parasite  which,  owing  to  a  press  of  other  affairs,  has  not  yet 
been  worked  up. 

August  27. — I  found  yesterday  a  cotton-worm  about  five-eighths  of  an  inch  in  length 
•which,  although  yet  alive,  was  being  destroyed  by  three  green  larvae  which  were 

upon  it.  I  found  the  specimens  about  10 
a.  m.  Last  evening  I  observed  that  the 
cotton-worm  was  nearly  eaten.  The  para- 
sites had  very  short  bodies,  which  when 
they  moved  were  pointed  at  one  end.  I 
had  intended  to  describe  the  specimens 
this  morning,  but  I  find  they  have  spun 
cocoons  about  their  bodies. 

August  28. — I  found  crawling  over  the 
ground  a  small  cotton-worm  infested  by 
five  parasites  evidently  of  the  same  species 
as  those  mentioned  in  my  note  of  August  27. 

FiG.42.-UnnamedchahTid.  AWU8t  29--The  small  green  parasites 

which  I  found  yesterday  destroyed  the  cot- 
ton-worm, and,  excepting  two  specimens  which  I  put  in  alcohol,  began  to  spin  cocoons 
during  the  night. 

The  insects  bred  from  these  specimens  were  small,  black,  chalcid  flies, 
shown  at  Fig.  — .  They  were  nearly  eight-hundredths  of  an  inch  (2mm) 
in  length.  The  general  color  was  black,  but  the  legs,  antennae,  and 
mouth  parts  were  honey-yellow.  The  head,  thorax,  and  abdomen  were 
nearly  equal  in  width,  and  the  thorax  was  longer  than  the  abdomen, 
which  was  pediceled  and  subtruncate  at  tip.  The  antennae  were  7- 
jointed. 

The  larvae  were  greenish  white,  oval,  somewhat  pointed  at  one  end, 
with  yellow  spiracles  or  breathing-holes,  and  were  fleshy  and  footless. 
They  were  sluggish  in  motion,  moving  by  the  alternate  contraction  and 
expansion  of  the  segments.  The  number  of  segments  of  the  body  was 
plainly  thirteen.  The  full-grown  larvae  were  about  0.08  inch  or  2mm  in 
length,  and  were  about  half  as  wide  as  long.  The  cocoons  which  they 
spun  were  ovoid  in  form,  grayish  white  in  color,  and  about  the  size  of  the 
full-grown  larvae. 

That  these  larvae  spun  cocoons  is  an  interesting  fact,  as  by  far  the 
large  majority  of  the  Chalcididae  transform  to  naked  pupae  within  the 
bodies  of  their  hosts.  The  fact  of  their  being  found  preying  externally 
upon  the  cotton-worms  is  an  anomalous  one.  Had  the  worms  upon  which 
they  were  found  been  more  nearly  full-grown,  and  had  the  effects  of 
their  outside  work  been  less  apparent,  their  appearance  might  have  been 
explained  on  the  ground  that  they  had  finished  their  work  inside  and 
had  merely  issued  to  spin  their  cocoons,  and  were  observed  in  the  in- 
terval between  their  issuing  and  the  commencement  of  the  spinning. 
The  cotton- worms  upon  which  they  were  found,  however,  were  less  than 
half-grown,  and  could  not  have  afforded  these  parasites  subsistence  from 
the  birth  of  the  latter  upward.  Moreover,  the  rapidity  with  which  the 


DIDYCTIUM   ZIGZAG.  197 

cottoii- worms  were  destroyed  after  they  were  found  showed  that  they 
could  not  have  been  preyed  upon  long  prior  to  the  date  of  observation. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  these  parasitic  larvae  with 
their  sluggish  habits  could  find  the  means  of  migrating  from  one  cottou- 
worm  to  another,  as  it  seems  probable  that  they  must  do  after  devouring 
the  individual  upon  which  they  are  born.  The  whole  question  is  one  of 
considerable  interest,  but  cannot  be  solved  without  further  observa- 
tions. 

THE   PROCTOTRUPID    PARASITE    OF    THE    COTTON  WORM    (Didyctium 

zigzag,  Kiley). — September  10,  1879,  a  number  of  small  parasitic  flies 
issued  from  chrysalides  of  the  cotton-worm.  Upon  examination  these 
proved  not  to  be  Chalcids,  but  to  belong  to  the  allied  family  Proctotru- 
pidae.  The  members  of  this  family  differ  from  the  Chalcids  in  their  usu- 
ally slenderer  body  and  longer  antennae.  The  antennae,  also,  are  not 
elbowed  as  in  Chalcididae.  It  is  a  family  of  very  minute  species,  which 
are  all  supposed  to  be  parasitic,  many  of  them  upon  the  eggs  of  o^her 
insects. 

The  species  under  consideration  is  shown  at  Fig.  43.    These  flies  are 
black,  polished,  with  the  antennae  and  legs  dark 
yellow.    The  antenna  of  the  female  are  13-jointed, 
the  first  joint  club-shaped,  the  second  almost  globu- 
lar j  3  to  7  are  much  thinner  than  any  of  the  oth- 
ers ;  3  about  as  long  as  2 ;  4  to  7  almost  globular ; 
4  a  little  thinner  at  base ;  8  to  12  about  equal  in  \ 
size,  round  at  base,  and  squarely  cut  off  at  apex ; 
13  as  long  as  preceding,  ending  in  a  rounded  blunt 
point.    The  antenna  of  the  male  are  very  long,  FIG.  43.— Didyctium  zig- 
about  as  long  as  the  whole  insect.    The  wings 
are  clear  and  sparsely  beset  with  short,  blackish  bristles,  and  with  quite 
a  long  fringe  around  the  edge.    The  veins  of  the  wings  are  yellowish. 

These  insects  are  about  .06  of  an  inch  (1.5mm)  in  length. 

These  parasites  were  bred  only  upon  a  single  occasion.  Then  many 
specimens  were  mounted.  Whether  they  were  all  from  one  chrysalis  or 
not  it  is  impossible  to  say  with  certainty,  but  the  probabilities  are  that 
they  were,  and  it  seems  probable  also  that  it  is  not  a  common  parasite. 

The  specimens  were  handed  to  Professor  Eiley  for  determination. 
He  deemed  it  necessary  to  found  a  new  genus  for  them,  of  which  the 
following  are  the  characters.  A  specific  description  follows  the  generic. 

DIDYCTIUM,  nov.  gen. — Head,  transverse;  three  ocelli  approximate  and  triangularly 
arranged;  labial  palpi  3-jointed;  palpi  3-jointed ;  antenna?  inserted  in  front  and  close 
together,  in  the  9  hardly  reaching  to  the  abdomen ;  13-jointed,  the  two  basal  points 
stout,  joints  3-7  suddenly  narrowed  and  together  not  much  longer  than  1  and  2, 
3  being  twice  as  long  as  the  others,  8-13  nearly  twice  as  stout,  peduncled,  subequal  in 
length,  very  slightly  narrowing  toward  tip;  in  the  $  as  long  as  body,  15-jointed, 
joint  3  twice  as  long  as  any  of  the  others,  4-13  subequal  in  length.  Thorax  as  long  as 
abdomen,  slightly  wider  in  the  middle  than  the  head ;  scutellum  prominently  raised, 
subovate  and  marginally  ridged ;  legs  with  the  tarsi  uniformly  5-jointed;  front  wings 


198  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

without  stigma,  the  veins  forming  with  the  costa  two  closed  cells ;  hind  wings  with 
a  costal  vein  reaching  and  broadening  to  near  the  middle  of  wing,  where  it  is  sud- 
denly bent  upward.  Abdomen  narrower  than  thorax,  with  a  short  peduncle. 

D.  zig-zag,  n.  sp. — Average  length,  1.6mm.  Body  uniformly  polished  black.  Legs, 
palpi,  and  antennae  reddish  in  female,  the  coxae,  femora,  and  antennae  toward  tip  infus- 
cate  in  the  male.  Peduncled  joints  of  antennae  with  a  whorl  of  minute  spines  around 
the  crown,  and  longitudinally  striate.  Base  of  thorax  and  of  abdomen  with  pale 
pubescent  hairs.  Wings  hyaline,  sparsely  beset  with  minute  spines,  which  increase 
radially  and  form  a  fringe  around  the  posterior  half ;  the  veins  of  front  wings  forming 
a  sprawling  W,  with  partial  cross-veins  proceeding  from  the  lower  angles,  the  basal 
cross-vein  longest. 

The  next  three  parasites  which  we  shall  mention  belong  to  the  family 
Ichneumonidae,  or  ichneumon  flies,  as  they  are  commonly  and  familiarly 
called.  These  insects  are  characterized  by  unusually  long  and  slender 
bodies,  and  the  long  projecting  ovipositors  of  the  females.  These  ovi- 
positors are  often  very  long,  and  are  protected  by  a  sheath  of  four  stylets 
ef  the  same  length  as  the  true  ovipositor.  The  head  is  usually  rather 
square,  with  long  many-jointed  antennae.  The  larva  is  a  soft,  cylindri- 
cal, fleshy,  white,  footless  grub,  the  rings  of  the  body  being  convex  and 
the  head  small.  The  eggs  are  laid  by  the  parent  either  on  the  outside 
or  within  the  caterpillar  or  other  larva  upon  which  its  young  is  destined 
to  feed.  When  hatched,  the  larva  devours  the  fatty  portions  of  its 
victim,  just  as  we  have  seen  with  foregoing  parasites,  until  it  gradually 
dies.  The  larva  spins  a  cocoon  about  itself  when  about  to  enter  the 
pupa  state.  In  the  larger  species  this  cocoon  consists  of  a  dense  inner 
case,  and  a  loose,  thin  outer  covering.  Of  the  larger  species  but  one 
individual  occupies  the  body  of  the  host,  while  in  the  smaller  species 
many  are  found  within  one  insect.  The  cocoons  of  most  species  are 
spun  within  the  body  of  the  parasitized  insect ;  but  others,  as  in  the 
genus  Microgaster,  emerge  and  spin  their  small,  oval,  often  bright-colored 
cocoons  on  the  outside.  The  family,  as  a  whole,  is  one  the  members  of 
which  are  of  immense  service  to  agriculturalists  in  destroying  great 
numbers  of  noxious  insects. 

THE  YELLOW-BANDED  ICHNEUMON  (Pimpla  conquisttor,  Say). — This 
is  one  of  the  most  numerous  and  most  noticeable  of 
the  parasites  of  the  cotton- worm.  It  was  the  species 
observed  by  Dr.  Gorham  and  Messrs.  Affleck  and 
Glover,  and  probably  also  the  one  spoken  of  by 
Mr.  Jones.  It  was  first  scientifically  described  by 
Thomas  Say,  in  1835,  who  found  it  iu  Indiana.* 
He  described  it  under  the  generic  name  of  Cryptus, 

FIG.  44.— Pimpla  con- but  **  nas  since  l)een  Put  in  ^mP^  *>J  Mr-  Cresson. 

quisitor.  A  recent  note  from  Mr  Cresson  informs  us  that 

Say  made  the  curious  mistake  of  describing  the  male  as  a  different 

'Say's  original  description  is  as  follows : 

C.  conqumtor. — Black  ;  tergum,  with  the  posterior  margins  of  the  segments,  white  ; 
feet  honey-yellow  ;  posterior  tibiae  and  tarsi  with  black  joints. 
Inhabits  Indiana. 
Body  black,  punctured;  palpi  white;  thorax,  punctures  minute;  a  longitudinal 


PIMPLA   CONQUISITOR.  199 

species  from  the  female,  under  the  name  of  pleurivinctus.  The  species 
varies  much  in  size,  and  Say  happened  to  meet  with  a  small  female 
and  a  large  male,  and,  the  face  of  the  male  being  white,  the  mistake 
was  thus  made.* 

The  history  of  this  species,  and  several  published  descriptions  of  it, 
have  already  been  given  in  the  beginning  of  this  subhead.  Its  habits 
coincide  with  those  laid  down  in  the  characterization  of  the  family  of 
ichneumons.  The  yellow-banded  ichneumon  was  bred  extensively  from 
the  chrysalides  of  the  last  brood  of  cotton- worms,  and,  so  far  as  we  are 
aware,  has  never  been  bred  from  any  preceding  brood.  Dr.  Gorham 
bred  them  from  the  chrysalides  of  the  last  brood  only,  as  also  did  Messrs. 
Glover  and  Jones.  During  the  past  summer  we  have  bred  in  the  depart- 
ment nearly  two  thousand  chrysalides  from  the  Alabama  cotton  fields 
and  not  one  specimen  of  the  yellow-banded  ichneumon  was  seen,  although 
many  other  parasites  were  obtained,  as  will  be  shown  hereafter.  Dur- 
ing the  fall  and  winter  of  1878  many  specimens  of  conqulsitor  were  bred 
from  chrysalides  of  this  last  brood,  and  we  are  under  the  strong  impres- 
sion that  none  were  bred  from  earlier  broods,  but  this  we  are  unable  to 
state  positively,  as  the  notes  on  this  point  are  in  the  possession  of  Pro- 
fessor Eiley.  This,  however,  is  all  negative  evidence,  and  although  it 
shows  that  the  last  brood  is  usually  extensively  parasitized  by  the  yel- 
low-banded ichneumon,  it  does  not  prove  also  that  previous  broods  are 
not  affected  to  a  small  extent  j  and  this  is  probably  the  case.  We  are, 
as  shown  by  the  evidence  adduced  above,  totally  unable  to  say  how 
many  broods  of  this  parasite  are  produced  in  a  year,  as  we  only  know  of 
the  one  bred  from  the  last  crop  of  cotton- worm  chrysalides. 

white  liiio  before  the  wings  j  metathorax  not  distinctly  punctured  on  the  disk ;  wings 
very  slightly  tinged  with  dusky ;  ncrvures  blackish ;  stigma  rather  large,  with  its 
base  and  tip  whitish ;  second  cubital  cellule  oblique ;  tergum  densely  punctured  on 
every  part ;  segments  on  their  posterior  narrow  margins  white ;  oviduct  about  half 
the  length  of  the  abdomen ;  feet  honey-yellow  ;  intermediate  and  posterior  tarsi 
white,  the  joints  black  at  their  tips ;  posterior  tibia?  black,  white  in  the  middle. 

Length  one-fourth  of  an  inch.  .     . 

*  Say's  description  of  pleurivinctus  is  as  follows : 

C.  pleurivinctus. — Black ;  segments  of  the  tergum  margined  with  white. 

Inhabits  United  States. 

Bodjr  black ;  thorax  with  a  short  line  before  the  wings  and  wing-scale  yellow ;  wings 
hyaline,  with  a  slight  dusky  tinge ;  nervures  blackish ;  stigma  rufous  at  the  stricture ; 
second  cubital  cellule  quadrangular,  somewhat  oblique,  meeting  the  radial  cellule  in 
an  angle ;  abdomen  almost  sessile ;  tergum  with  the  first  segment  excavated  near  the 
base ;  densely  punctured ;  all  the  segments  with  narrow  white  posterior  margins ; 
oviduct  exserted,  short,  hardly  half  the  length  of  the  abdomen ;  feet  honey-yellow, 
posterior  pairs  with  the  knees,  tips  of  the  tibiie,  and  each  tarsal  joint  black. 

Length  over  half  an  inch. 
$  Hind  pair  of  feet  with  an  annnlus  on  the  tibiaj  and  base  of  each  tarsal  joint  white. 

The  male  is  much  smaller  than  the  female.  I  obtained  a  female  from  a  follicle  of 
the  common  folliculate  Linnean  Bonibyx  with  transparent  wings,  which  were  extremely 
abundant  a  few  years  since  in  Maryland,  causing  much  apprehension  for  the  safety  of 
the  trees  of  their  choice.  Some  of  them  were  obtained  for  me  by  my  friend  Mr.  Gil- 
liams,  for  examination,  Avhen  I  described  them  under  the  name  of  hyalina,  but  did  not 
publish  the  account. 


200  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

That  the  earlier  broods,  if  such  exist,  may  be  reared  in  other  insects 
is  possible  from  the  fact  that  very  many  members  of  this  family  are  not 
confined  to  one  species  of  insect,  and  from  the  fact  that  Say  described 
the  original  individuals  as  from  Indiana;  and  it  is  probable  from  their 
rarity,  if  not  actual  absence,  among  the  earlier  broods  of  cotton-worms. 

The  length  of  time  which  it  takes  one  of  these  parasites  to  undergo 
its  transformations  has  not  been  observed.  This  would  undoubtedly 
facilitate  our  knowledge  of  the  number  of  broods.  If  the  larva  spins  a 
cocoon  at  all,  it  is  very  slight ;  so  slight,  indeed,  that  upon  breaking  off 
the  end  of  the  parasitized  chrysalis  the  pupa  of  the  parasite  is  exposed 
to  view.  The  perfect  insect  emerges  in  late  fall,  in  midwinter,  and  in 
early  spring,  through  an  irregular  hole  which  it  gnaws  through  the  skin 
of  the  chrysalis,  usually  near  the  head. 

The  fact  that  these  parasites  are  frequently  alive  within  the  chrysa- 
lides throughout  the  whole  winter  has  given  rise  to  the  supposition  on 
the  part  of  many  that  the  chrysalis  itself  was  still  alive,  from  the  mo- 
tion imparted  to  it  by  the  contained  insect,  and  have  thus  been  led  to 
believe  implicitly  in  the  hibernation  of  the  cotton-worm  in  the  chrysalis 
state.  Many  chrysalides  were  sent  to  the  department  during  the  past 
winter  by  persons  holding  this  belief,  but,  without  exception,  those  speci- 
mens which  still  seemed  to  have  life  contained  each  the  pupa  of  a  yel- 
low-banded ichneumon.  We  have  already  quoted  from  Mr.  William 
Jones's  graphic  description  of  an  experience  of  this  sort.  Dr.  Anderson 
was  deceived  in  the  same  way,  and  chrysalides  which  he  had  kept  until 
some  time  in  December  were  shown  by  Mr.  Schwarz  to  be  parasitized. 

The  evidence  given  by  Dr.  Gorham  and  Mr.  Affleck,  as  well  as  our 
own  experience  the  past  year,  would  seem  to  show  that  this  parasite  is, 
during  certain  years,  very  abundant  indeed  upon  the  last  brood  of  worms, 
and  although  it  might  at  first  be  said  that  the  good  accomplished  by 
them  is  smaller  than  if  they  were  abundant  with  preceding  broods,  yet, 
when  we  consider  that  everj'  individual  of  the  last  brood  which  is  parasi- 
tized reduces  by  just  so  much  the  number  of  possible  hiberuators  and 
founders  of  families  the  succeeding  spring,  then  we  can  appreciate  the 
amount  of  good  which  this  parasite  accomplishes,  and  although  we  may 
not  indorse  the  somewhat  extravagant  estimates  of  Dr.  Gorhain  and 
Mr.  Affleck,  still  we  may  consider  ourselves  deeply  indebted  to  the  yel- 
low-banded ichneumons. 

THE  RING-LEGGED  PIMPLA  (Pimpla  annulipes,  Br.}. — September  1, 
1879,  there  issued  from  a  cotton-worm  chrysalis  one  specimen  of  the 
ichneumon  to  which  Professor  Riley  gave  the  above  popular  name  in 
his  fifth  Missouri  Entomological  Eeport.  This  is  the  only  specimen 
which  has  been  bred  this  year.  It  is  an  old  acquaintance,  having  been 
bred  from  the  walnut  case-bearer  (Acrobasis  juglandis,  Le  B.)  by  Dr.  Le 
Baron,  and  from  the  codling  moth  of  the  apple  (Carpocapsa  pomonella) 
by  Professor  Riley.  It  is  a  widely  distributed  species,  being  found  all 
over  the  country,  north,  south,  cast,  and  west,  and  that  it  is  common  is 
shown  from  the  fact  that  Professor  Riley  bred  20  females  from  a  lot  of 


CRYPTUS   NUNCIUS.  201 

162  apple-worm  cocooiis.  In  these  lie  found  great  variation  in  size,  some 
measuring  but  one-fourth  of  an  inch  in  length,  while  others  reached 
one-half. 

Roughly  describing  this  parasite,  we  may  say  that  it  presents  a  nearly 
black  appearance  above,  the  under  side  of 
the  abdomen  being  honey-yellow.  When 
viewed  with  a  lens,  the  upper  surface  of  the 
abdomen  is  seen  to  be  covered  with  close 
punctures,  while  the  thorax  is  nearly  smooth. 
The  legs  are  reddish  yellow  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  middle  joint  of  the  hind  pair, 
which  is  black,  with  a  broad  yellow  ring  in 
its  middle.  The  hind  feet  are  dusky.  The 
female  ovipositor  is  dark  shining  red.  The 
palpi  are  pale  yellow.  According  to  Cresson 
(the  authority  on  American  Ichneumonidae), 

annulipes  may  be  distinguished  from  other    , 

FIG.  45.— Pinmlii  umailipes. 

specimens  of  the  genus  by  the  scutellum 

(the  hind  part  of  the  thorax)  being  black,  the  tegulae  (scales  at  the  base 
of  the  front  wings)  white,  and  the  anterior  coxae  (round  joints  at  the  base 
of  the  front  legs)  yellowish  red. 

Professor  Eiley  states  that  the  ring-legged  piinpla  eats  its  way  through 
the  chrysalis  and  cocoon  of  the  codling  moth  without  having  previously 
made  any  cocoon  of  its  own ;  and  we  may  reasonably  suppose  the  same 
to  be  the  case  when  it  infests  the  cotton- worm,  making  it  similar  to 
Pimpla  conquisitor  in  this  respect. 

CEYPTUS  NUNCIUS,  Say. — Another  ichneumonid  parasite,  belonging  to 
a  different  genus  from  the  last  two  discussed,  and  known  by  the  above 
scientific  name,  was  bred  from  cotton  chrysalides,  on  two  occasions  or 
more,  in  the  department  last  season.  It  is  a  very  common  parasite,  and 
has  been  often  bred  in  large  numbers  from  the  cocoons  of  the  larger 
Bombycid  moths.  I  have  bred  no  less  than  35  individuals  from  one 
cocoon  of  Telea  polyphemus.  It  is  probable  that  several  may  occasionally 
be  bred  from  one  chrysalis  of  Aletia,  but  the  notes  taken  on  this  point 
last  year  are  in  the  possession  of  Professor  Kiley. 

The  following  is  Say's  original  description  of  this  insect : 

C.  nuncius. — Black ;  abdomen,  excepting  the  base  and  tip,  rufous. 

Inhabits  Pennsylvania. 

Body  black,  palpi  white,  blackish  at  tip ;  antennae  of  the  female  with  a  long  white 
annulns  in  the  middle;  thorax  immaculate;  two  impressed  lines;  wings  hyaline; 
nervurcs  brown;  stigma  rather  slender;  second  cubital  cellule  rather  large,  penta- 
gonal, the  two  angles  on  the  radial  uervure  nearly  rectangular ;  recurrent  uervures 
almost  rectilinear ;  tergum,  basal  segment  wholly  or  in  part  black ;  second,  third,  and 
generally  half  of  the  fourth  rufous  or  honey-yellow,  remaining  segments  black; 
oviduct  nearly  half  the  length  of  the  abdomen ;  feet  honey-yellow ;  posterior  pair  of 
tibiae  at  tip  and  knees  black ;  posterior  taisi  pale  yellowish. 

Length  about  two-fifths  of  an  inch. 

I  obtajued  many  specimens  from  the  larva  of  Attacus  promethia,  Linn.,  several 
years  ago. 


202  EEPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

This  concludes  our  list  of  hymenopterous  parasites  of  the  cotton- 
worin.  The  remaining  five  belong  to  the  order  DIPTEEA,  or  two-winged 
insects. 

THE  TACHINA  FLIES  (Dipt.,  family  TcwMnidae).—Two  of  these  two- 
winged  parasites  belong  to  the  family  Tachinidae.  The  members  of 
this  family  are  parasitic  upon  other  insects,  the  females  depositing  their 
eggs  upon  the  bodies  of  caterpillars,  &c.,  and  the  young  larvae  hatch- 
ing, penetrate  into  the  interior  of  the  body  and  live  upon  the  fatty  por- 
tions of  the  victim.  The  number  of  eggs  laid  upon  a  single  caterpillar 
varies  with  the  size  of  the  caterpillar.  Serville  is  said  to  have  reared 
as  many  as  80  specimens  from  a  single  larva  of  Acherontia  atropos.  I 
have  frequently  observed  as  many  as  15  to  20  eggs  of  Nemoraea  leucaniae, 
Kirkp.,  upon  a  full-grown  larva  of  the  army-worm  of  the  Xorth  (Heli- 
ophila  unipuncta.  Haw.).  Eight  seems  to  be  the  largest  number  which 
has  been  found  upon  the  cotton-worm. 

These  Tachina  flies  have  much  the  appearance  of  the  ordinary  house- 
flies,  but  are  usually  larger.  Their  eggs  are  tough,  white,  opaque, 
oval,  and  somewhat  flattened  on  the  side  towards  the  body,  to  which 
they  are  firmly  attached  by  a  gum  insoluble  in  water.  With  the  slug- 
gish caterpillars  these  flies  have  little  difficulty  in  depositing  their  eggs 
when,  how,  and  where  they  please.  They  always  place  them  upon  the 
back  of  the  head,  or  on  the  first  three  or  four  segments  of  the  body,  in 
such  a  position,  in  fact,  that  the  caterpillar  can  in  no  way  reach  them. 
With  flying  insects,  however,  the  case  is  more  difficult.  We  quote  from 
Report  of  the  the  Entomological  Commission  on  the  Rocky  Mountain 
Locust : 

The  slow-flying  locusts  are  attacked  while  flying,  and  it  is  quite  amusing  to  watch 
the  frantic  efforts  which  one  of  them,  haunted  by  a  Tachina  fly,  will  make  to  avoid 
its  enemy.  The  fly  buzzes  around,  waitiug  her  opportunity,  and,  when  the  locust 
jumps  or  flies,  darts  at  it  and  attempts  to  attach  her  egg  under  the  wing  or  on  the 
neck.  The  attempt  frequently  fails,  but  she  perseveres  until  she  usually  accomplishes 
her  object.  With  those  locusts  which  fly  readily  she  has  even  greater  difficulty;  but 
though  the  locust  suddenly  tacks  in  all  directions  in  its  efforts  to  avoid  her,  she  circles 
close  around  it,  and  generally  succeeds  in  accomplishing  her  purpose,  either  while  the 
locust  is  yet  on  the  wing,  or,  more  often,  just  as  it  alights  from  a  flight  or  hop. 

The  parasitic  larva,  when  ready  to  hatch,  eats  its  way  through  the 
egg  on  the  side  towards  its  victim  and  burrows  into  its  flesh.  They 
seem  endowed  by  nature  with  a  fondness  for  nothing  but  fatty  tissue, 
which  teaches  them  to  leave  the  vital  parts  of  the  host  alone.  When 
full-fed  and  ready  to  transform  they  do  not,  as  did  the  last-mentioned 
parasites,  transform  within  the  shell  of  the  insect  from  which  they  have 
obtained  their  nourishment,  but  perforate  the  skin  and  enter  the  ground 
to  the  depth  of  from  half  an  inch  to  two  inches.  Here  they  contract  to 
brown  oval  puparia  and  remain  for  a  longer  or  shorter  space  of  time. 
According  to  Riley,  the  last  brood  usually  winters  in  these  puparia. 
The  following  spring  the  fly  issuing  works  its  way  to  the  surface  of  the 
ground  and  takes  wing. 


TACHINA   ALETIAE.  203 

These  insects  are  among  the  most  effective  parasites  of  many  noxious 
insects.  The  Northern  army- worm  is  frequently  almost  exterminated  in 
localities  by  Nemoraea  leucaniae,  Kirkp.,  and  JExorista  flavicauda,  Eiley. 
The  Colorado  potato-bug  has  been  killed  off  in  great  numbers  by  Lydella 
doryphorae,  a  member  of  this  family,  and  the  Eocky  Mountain  locust 
found  in  Tachina  anonyma  one  of  its  most  determined  enemies.  It  would, 
indeed,  have  been  strange  had  not  at  least  one  species  of  this  family 
been  found  among  the  cotton- worms. 

In  November,  1878,  two  specimens  of  what  seemed  to  be  a  new  species 
of  Tcwhina  were  bred  from  the  pupa  of  the  cotton- worm.  From  these 
specimens  Professor  Eiley  has  described  the  species,  in  a  recent  number 
of  the  Canadian  Entomologist,  as  Tachina  aletiae,  n.  sp.,  as  follows; 

3.  TACHINA  ALETIAE,  n.  sp.— Length,  8mm.  Black;  head  golden,  facial  depression 
silvery,  space  between  the  eyes  and  the  frontal  stripe  about  equal  to  the  breadth  of 
the  stripe,  bristles  of  the  head  black,  the  pubescence  behind  and  beneath  the  eyes 
white ;  antennae  blackish,  palpi  testaceous.  Eyes  at  a  moderate  distance  apart,  thinly 
pubescent;  front  moderately  prominent;  third  joint  of  the  antennae  three  or  four 
times  the  length  of  the  second  joint.  Thorax  and  the  second  and  following  abdominal 
joints  more  or  less  ashy,  the  thorax  with  four  or  five  longitudinal  black  stripes.  Wings 
subhyaline.  Legs  black,  with  a  piceous  tinge ;  tarsal  cushions  yellowish.  Scutellum 
and  the  sides  of  the  first,  second,  and  third  abdominal  joints  sometimes  tinged  with 
reddish-brown.  No  strong  bristles  on  the  first  and  second  abdominal  joints  above. 

Described  from  two  specimens  reared  in  November,  1878,  from  the  pupa  of  Aletia 
argillacea. 

During  the  season  of  1879  many  of  these  parasites  have  been  bred. 
The  latter  part  of  July  Mr.  Trelease  forwarded  a  quantity  of  parasitized 
larvae  from  Dawson's  Station,  Ala.,  with  the  following  note : 

JULY  24,  1879. 

I  mail  you  to-day  a  box  containing  some  95  pupae  and  webbed-up  larvae  of  Aletia. 
*  *  *  I  find  nearly  one-half  of  the  larvae  from  one-third  to  two-thirds  grown  bear- 
ing small  white  eggs  on  their  backs.  (It  is  only  for  the  last  few  days  that  I  have  no- 
ticed this,  but  it  has  probably  been  the  case  with  this  entire  third  brood.)  These 
eggs  are  of  two  sizes.  The  larger  are  usually,  perhaps  always,  deposited  singly  on  the 
dorsum  of  one  of  the  thoracic  segments  of  the  larva,  and  placed  transversely  or  ob- 
liquely. •  They  are  elongated,  oval  at  the  two  ends,  but  more  often  bluntly  rounded. 
Their  length  averages  about  8mra,  their  breadth  2mm.  They  are  very  slightly  flattened 
on  the  surface  by  which  they  are  attached.  Sometimes,  when  no  egg  can  be  seen,  a 
discolored  mark  of  the  size  and  shape  of  the  egg  is  seen  on  the  back  of  the  larva;  in 
other  cases  a  discoloration  below  the  skin  of  the  thorax  appears  to  show  the  upresence 
of  a  parasite  larva.  The  smaller  eggs  are  also  white,  and  measure  about  6mm  by  2mm, 
from  which  you  will  see  that  they  are  broader  proportionally,  and  consequently  more 
oval  than  cylindrical.  They  are  slightly  more  flattened  on  the  under  surface  as  a 
rule.  These  are  deposited  on  the  side  and  back  of  the  head  and  thoracic  segments, 
and  vary,  in  the  cases  so  far  noticed,  from  one  to  four  in  number ;  sometimes,  where 
there  are  several,  being  scattered  almost  in  contact  with  each  other. 

These  eggs  were  fastened  very  firmly  to  the  back  of  the  larvae,  and 
were  all  so  placed  that  the  victim  could  by  no  exertion  reach  them  with 
its  jaws.  In  some  cases  they  appeared  to  be  even  sunk  beneath  the 
skin,  and  Mr.  Trelease  records  the  fact  in  a  later  letter  that  he  has 
seen  the  skin  shed  without  the  egg  being  also  cast  off.  The  adult  flies, 


204 


EEPORT   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 


from  these  specimens  sent  July  24,  began  to  issue  September  1.  This, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  the  specimens  reared  in  1878  is- 
sued in  November,  would  seem  to  argue  three  broods  a  year  for  this 
species  of  Tachina,  the  last  two  broods  certainly  destroying  many  cot- 
ton-worms. 

An  examination  of  the  specimens  issuing  from  this  lot  of  worms 
revealed  two  individuals  of  a  new  species  of  Tachina,  differing  from  T. 
aletiae  in  several  respects.  We  shall  not  attempt  to  name  it,  but  draw 
up  the  following  temporary  description,  to  last  only  until  the  specimens 
can  be  handed  to  an  expert : 

Tachina,  n.  sp. — Length  6  mm. 

Color. — General  effect  nearly  black ;  head,  face,  and  facial  depression  silvery  white, 
inclining  slightly  to  golden  on  occiput;  antenna?,  1st  and  3d  joints  black,  2d  joint 
testaceous ;  palpi  testaceous ;  pubescence  behind  the  head  blackish ;  thorax,  second 
and  following  abdominal  joints  ashy ;  thorax  with  two  plain  longitudinal  black  stripes 
and  two  indistinct;  first  abdominal  joint  black  above,  ashy  beneath;  femora  piceous; 
tibiae  and  tarsi  nearly  black.  Eyes  finely  pubescent.  In  other  respects  resembling 
T.  aletiae,  Riley.  Described  from  two  specimens. 

FLESH-FLIES  (Dipt.,  family  SARCOPHAGEDAE,  genus  Sarcophaga). — 
From  general  appearance  it  would  be  impossible  to  separate  a  flesh-fly 


FIG.  46. — Sarcophaga  carnaria. 

from  a  Tacliina  fly,  and  only  by  the  help  of  a  lens  is  it  possible  to  dis- 
tinguish them  j  the  principal  difference  being  that  in  the  family  now 
under  consideration  the  style  of  the  antennae  or  antenna!  bristle  is  plu- 
mose or  hairy,  although  naked  at  the  tip,  while  in  TacUnidac  it  is  naked 
throughout  its  length.  These  flies  have  long  been  considered  remarka- 
ble on  account  of  their  viviparous  habits.  The  eggs  are  long  and  deli- 
cate and  hatch  quickly.  If  the  female  is  unable  to  find  a  suitable  place 


FLESH-FLIES.  205 

to  deposit  them  within  a  given  time  after  fertilization  they  hatch  "within 
her  body,  and  we  have  the  phenomenon  of  a  viviparous  insect.  The 
ovaries  are  large  and  arranged  in  a  spiral  manner,  and  De  Geer  is  said 
to  vouch  for  the  development  of  20,000  larvae  in  one  female.  The  dis- 
tinction between  the  earlier  forms  of  the  flesh-flies  and  Tachina  flies  is 
said  by  Professor  Eiley  to  be  that — 

The  Tachina  larva  is  rounded  posteriorly,  with  a  small  spiracular  cavity,  easily 
closed,  and  having  a  smooth  rim ;  it  contracts  to  a  pupa,  which  is  quite  uniformly 
rounded  at  each  end.  The  Sarcophaga  larva  is  more  truncate  behind,  with  fleshy  warts 
on  the  rim  of  the  spiracular  cavity,  and  with  a  more  tapering  head;  it  contracts  to  a 
pupa,  which  is  also  truncate  behind  and  more  tapering  in  front,  where  the  prothoracic 
spiracles  show,  as  they  never  do  in  Tachina. 

It  is  the  general  habit  of  the  flesh-flies  to  deposit  their  eggs  or  young 
upon  dead  and  putrefying  animal  matter,  but  they  are  often  known  to 
thus  infest  living  animals,  thus  par-taking  of  the  nature  of-  parasites. 
Their  habits  are  then  similar  to  the 
Tachinidae.  The  larva  lives  within  the 
insect,  and  similarly  issues  when  full 
grown  to  pupate  under  ground. 

During  the  summer  of  1878  several 
specimens  of  a  flesh-fly  were  reared 
from  pupae  of  Aletia.    These  proved 
to  be  specimens  of  Sarcopliaga  sarra-      FIG.  47.— Sarcophaga  camaria  var. 
ceniae  Eiley,  a  probable  American  vari-  sarracenae. 

ety  of  that  widespread  scavenger  Sarcopliaga  carnaria,  Linn.,  a  species 
common  to  Europe,  America,  and  Australia  certainly,  and  probably  else- 
where to  be  found.  Sarraceniae  was  first  described  by  Professor  Eiley, 
in  a  paper  read  before  the  Saint  Louis  Academy  of  Sciences,  as  feeding 
upon  the  dead  insects  to  be  found  in  the  leaves  of  Sarracenias.  Fig.  47 
represents  this  insect  in  its  various  stages,  and  the  following  is  Professor 
Eiley's  description  of  the  species : 

Sarcopliaga  sarraceniae,  n.  s. 

LARVA.— 0.30-0.85  inch  long;  body  composed  of  but  11  visible  points,  exclusive  of 
the  head ;  microscopically  and  transversely  shagreened ;  transversely  wrinkled,  the 
hind  wrinkle  on  each  joint  more  particularly  prominent  laterally. 

Head  extremely  small,  or  one-fourth  as  large  as  joint  1,  showing  a  division  into  two 
maxillary  lobes  at  the  tip,  and  a  larger  labial  lobe  beneath,  with  a  small  bunch  of 
setons  fibers  issuing  from  it ;  the  black  retractile  jaws  of  the  ordinary  form  issuing 
between  these  lobes,  and  the  antennae  showing  in  two  small  rufous  projections  above 
the  maxillary  lobes,  sparsely  armed  anteriorly  with  minute,  conical,  sharp-pointed 
spines,  decurved  in  front,  directed  backward  beneath.  Prothoracic  spiracle  pale, 
rufous,  retractile,  sponge-like,  studded  with  numerous  lobules  divided  at  the  end  into 
a  variable  number  of  branches  (6  being  usually  apparent,  never  more  than  8),  which, 
in  their  turn  ramify  into  lobules.  Anal  stigmatic  cavity  quite  deep,  the  fleshy  prom- 
inences on  the  carina  surrounding  it  subobsolete;  the  stigmata  but  slightly  excavated 
below  the  border,  brown,  inclosing  three  brown  openings,  the  lower  ends  of  which 
reach  to  a  circular,  clear  space  in  the  corneous  and  pale  rufous  peritrevne.  Anal  pro- 
legs  quite  small,  with  the  longitudinal  anal  slit  between  and  a  corneous  plate  in  front 
of  them. 


206  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

PUPARIUM.— 0.25-0.50  inch  long;  neither  smooth  nor  highly  polished,  and  varying 
from  yellowish-brown  to  deep  brown-black  in  color.  Insections  more  or  less  dis- 
tinctly traceable.  Head  and  prothoracic  joint  retracted;  the  prothoracic  spiracles 
protruding  and  forming  two  small  ears  about  as  long  as  joint  2;  the  mass  of  lobules 
hardened  and  rufous ;  joints  2  and  3  constricted  and  flattened,  4  suddenly  bulging. 
End  of  body  squarely  docked  by  spiracular  cavity,  the  rim  of  which  forms  quite  a 
ridge. 

IMAGO. — Length  of  body  0.23-0.56  inch.  Head  pale  golden-yellow,  especially 
when  viewed  from  above,  with  a  dark  brown  or  bronze  sheen,  especially  below ; 
eyes  ferruginous  in  life,  duller  and  bronze-colored  in  death ;  stripe  between  the  eyes 
and  all  appendages  Jet-black,  thoiigh  showing  in  fresh  specimens  shades  of  brown  or 
yellowing-brown,  especially  at  inner  base  of  antennae  and  on  maxipalps.  Thorax 
pale  ash-gray,  with  three  prominent  dark,  'longitudinal  dorsal  vittie,  and  two  which 
are  shorter  on  each  side,  the  two  intervening  pale  dorsal  spaces  showing  also  a  tar- 
row  darker  line  along  their  middle ;  wings  slightly  fuliginous;  tegulae  sordid  white; 
legs  black,  with  the  front  thighs  grayish  beneath;  cushions  large  and  pale  yellowish ; 
abdomen  of  the  same  gray — inclining,  in  some  specimens,  to  pale  golden-yellow,  espec- 
ially behind — checkered  with  black,  the  pattern  varying  with  each  change  of  light, 
but  3  longitudinal  lines  tolerably  distinct  from  above,  the  side  ones  approaching  or 
joining  the  medial  one  on  the  anterior  part  of  each  joint,  and  the  whole  looking 
checkered  as  the  light  falls  on  the  sides ;  anus  always,  and  frequently  the  hind  mar- 
gin of  preceding  or  4th  abdominal  joint,  pale  reddish-brown,  the  color  deepening  and 
becoming  less  noticeable  in  the  dead  specimen  ;  the  globular  and  highly  polished  $ 
genital  organ  of  a  brighter  and  deeper  reddish -brown. 

Described  from  numerous  specimens  reared  from  Sarracenia  variolaris  and  £  flora. 

REMARKS. — Though  there  is  such  great  variation  in  size — depending,  no  doubt,  on 
the  amount  of  nourishment  obtainable  by  the  larva — there  is  not  much  in  coloration. 
The  species  compaie  tolerably  well  with  the  description  of  carnaria,  except  in 
having  a  red  anus,  and  should,  perhaps,  be  considered  only  a  variety  of  this  last. 
Whether  it  be  any  of  Walker's  or  Desvoidy's  species  mentioned  in  Osten  Sacken's  cat- 
alogue I  have  no  means  of  positively  knowing,  but  I  have  carefully  read  over  the  de- 
scriptions of  Meigen,  Macquart,  and  Wiedemaun  without  feeling  warranted  in  refer- 
ring it  to  any  of  them.  Several  of  the  brief  descriptions  of  these  authors  might  an- 
swer for  it,  barring  the  red  anus,  for  a  number  of  them  consist  of  two  or  three  lines, 
without  measurements ;  and,  for  aught  the  student  can  see  to  the  contrary,  several  of 
them  apply  to  one  and  the  same  species. 

The  larva  differs  from  Packard's  description  of  that  of  carnaria  in  the  character  of 
the  prothoracic  spiracle  in  lacking  the  12  blunt  spines  around  the  anal  spiracular  re- 
gion, and  in  having  the  clear  space  in  the  peritreme  of  the  anal  spiracles,  by  which  it 
seems  to  agree  more  with  his  description  of  Calliphora,  and  to  indicate  that  this  fea- 
ture cannot  be  looked  upon  as  of  generic  value,  as  Dr.  Packard  suggests  it  may  be. — 
(Trans.  St.  Louis  Alad.,  iii,  238.) 

Several  specimens  of  sarraceniae  have  been  secured  the  present  sum- 
mer (1879),  and  also  what  is  probably  a  new  species  of  Sarcophaga. 

On  August  12,  together  with  a  lot  of  chrysalides  from  Alabama,  were 
received  the  eggs  of  this  new  flesh-fly.  They  appeared  to  have  been 
deposited  singly  upon  the  leaves  which  the  cotton-worms  had  wrapped 
about  them  preparatory  to  transforming  to  chrysalides.  These  eggs 
were  white  and  extremely  delicate.  In  size  they  were  about  1.3mm  by 
.3mm,  or  0.0515  inch  by  .0119  0  inch.  One  side  is  flattened  and  in  fact 
slightly  concave,  so  that  in  a  profile  view  the  egg  resembles  a  razor- 
shell,  one  end  being  somewhat  truncate  and  the  other  rounded.  The 


FLESH-FLIES.  207 

next  day  after  their  arrival,  August  13,  these  eggs  hatched.  The  young 
larvae  were  of  the  same  size  and  about  the  same  shape  as  the  egg.  They 
immediately  made  their  way  into  the  cotton-worm  chrysalis,  to  which 
the  leaf  was  attached.  They  were  seven  in  number.  In  four  days  they 
had  demolished  the  chrysalis  and  increased  greatly  in  size.  Having 
finished  this  chrysalis,  they  emerged  and  crawled  about,  evidently  search- 
ing for  more  food.  Another  Aletia  pupa  was  furnished,  which  they  de- 
stroyed in  less  than  three  days.  In  this  way  some  five  or  six  pupae  were 
eaten  out  by  them.  On  the  20th  of  August  they  appeared  nearly  full- 
grown,  and  on  the  23d  all  but  one  transformed  to  puparia — only  ten 
days  having  elapsed  from  the  time  of  birth. 

The  full-grown  larva  was  about  a  half  inch  (12.5mm)  in  length,  0.119 
inch  (3mm)  in  width  at  the  posterior  end  of  the  body,  which  is  truncated. 
From  this  point  it  tapers  gradually  down  to  the  head,  which  ends  in  a 
nearly  sharp  point.  Its  color  is  white.  But  twelve  segments  to  the 
body  are  discernible,  the  head  being  entractile  within  the  first  thoracic 
segment.  At  the  juncture  of  the  segments  there  is  a  projecting  rough- 
ness around  the  body,  more  prominent,  however,  on  the  lower  side,  for 
purposes  of  locomotion.  The  larva,  then,  corresponds  pretty  well  with 
Professor  Kiley's  general  statements  concerning  Sarcopliaga  larvae  just 
quoted,  but  the  puparium  seems  intermediate  between  that  of  Sarco- 
pliaga  and  Tachina.  It  will  be  remembered  that  one  of  these  distinc- 
tions which  he  lays  down  as  between  Tachina  and  Sarcophaga  is  that  the 
puparium  of  the  former  is  "quite 
uniformly  rounded  at  each  end," 
while  that  of  the  latter  is  "  trun- 
cate behind  and  more  tapering 
in  front,  where  the  prothoracic 
spiracles  show,  as  they  never  do 
in  Tachina."  In  the  present  in- 
stance, however,  the  puparia,  as 
shown  in  the  figure,  were  much 
more  nearly  uniformly  rounded 
at  the  ends  than  is  customary 
with  Sarcophaga,  and  the  prothoraeic  spiracles  were  represented  by  thf 
most  insignificant  tubercles. 

August  28,  or  five  days  after  entering  the  pupa  state,  two  flies  emerged, 
and  August  29  the  other  four  issued.  They  showed  the  characteristic 
plumed  antennal  bristles  of  the  Sarcophagidae,  but  differed  in  wing  vena- 
tion  from  any  specimens  of  Sarcophagidae  or  Tachiniidae  which  I  have 
seen.  In  general  appearance  these  flies  much  resemble  the  sarraceniae, 
but  are  rather  smaller.  The  six  specimens  bred  diflfer  among  themselves 
strangely  in  regard  to  the  width  of  the  space  between  the  eyes,  as  in 
three  of  them  it  equals  one-third  the  width  of  the  head,  and  in  the  others 
it.  is  the  merest  line. 

It  is  impossible  to  say  from  the  experience  had  with  them  whether  this 


208  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

parasite  is  common  or  not,  though  from  the  number  of  chrysalides  de- 
stroyed by  the  larvae  reared  it  will  prove  a  very  useful  one  if  common. 

Figure  48  represents  the  insect  in  all  stages  j  a  is  the  egg,  natural 
size  ;  6  is  the  egg  enlarged ;  c  is  the  full  grown  larva  ;  d  is  the  head  of 
the  larva  enlarged;  e  is  the  puparium ;  and/  the  adult  insect. 
PHOBA  ALETIAE: 

August  12,  1879,  a  large  number  of  small  white  maggots  were  found 
in  chrysalides  sent  from  Minters,  Ala.  These  maggots,  which  appeared 
nearly  full  grown,  were  about  0.15  inch  (4mm)  in  length ;  they  were  rather 
slender,  the  9th  segment  being  the  broadest.  The  posterior  end  of  the 
body  was  large  and  rounded,  and  the  anterior  end  tapered  gradually  to 
a  point. 

Examination  with  a  lens  showed  that  each  segment  was  armed  later- 
ally with  four  short,  stout  spines  (two  on  each  side),  and  the  posterior 
end  of  the  body  was  furnished  with  six.  August  16  these  larvae  com- 
menced to  pupate.  The  puparium  was  light  brown  in  color,  lmm  by 
2mm  in  size.  The  front  side  showed  the  joining  of  the  segments,  and 
was  somewhat  rugose;  the  back  side  was  smooth;  the  posterior  end 
was  rounded  and  armed  with  the  same  six  small  spines  that  were  present 
in  the  larva;  the  anterior  end  of  the  body  was  more  pointed.  From 
about  the  third  thoracic  segment  two  long  black  excurved  spines  pro- 
truded, which  presented  the  most  characteristic  feature  of  the  puparium. 
The  perfect  flies  began  to  issue  in  great  numbers  August  27,  or  about 
ten  days  from  the  time  of  commencing  to  pupate.  They  proved  to  be 
active  little  yellowish-brown  two-winged  flies,  with  robust  bodies  and 
short,  stout  wings.  They  are  well  represented  at  Fig.  49,  as  also  are 
the  larva  and  pupa. 

It  was  at  first  thought  that  these  larvae  would  not  prove  to  be  truly 
parasitic,  but  that  they  were  to  be  found  only  in  those  cotton- worm  chrys- 
alides which  were  already  dead  from  some  other  cause  and  decaying. 
Still  a  doubt  remained,  and  in  pursuit  of  other  facts,  Mr.  Trelease,  from 
whom  the  specimens  had  been  received,  was  addressed.  He  replied  as 
follows : 

With  regard  to  these  flies,  I  may  state  that  I  have  seen  them  in  abundance  in  all 
of  my  jars — covered  with  gauze — in  which  I  have  reared  larvae  of  either  Aletia  or 
Heliothis,  being  found  there  while  the  specimens  of  Aletia  and  Heliollris  were  larvae, 
and  were,  as  I  supposed,  attracted  by  the  leaves  and  bolls  put  in  for  the  latter  to  feed 
upon.  I  would  account  for  their  presence  among  my  pupae  [meaning  the  pupae  which 
he  had  sent  to  the  department  and  from  which  the  flies  had  been  bred]  by  saying  that 
they  were  there  to  feed  upon  the  leaves  in  which  the  latter  were  inclosed ;  but  if  they 
have  been  bred  from  the  pupae,  I  have  nothing  more  to  say.  I  find  them  in  the  field 
about  the  pupae  of  Aletia,  and  had  supposed  that  they  might  sometimes  feed  upon 
the  little  fluid  left  in  the  pupa  skins  after  the  exclusion  of  the  moth,  since  they  con- 
gregate in  these  empty  skins. 

Among  a  lot  of  cotton-worm  chrysalides  received  August  28  were 
many  which  were  in  all  stages  of  demolition  from  being  devoured  by 
these  Phora  larvae.  Some  specimens  contained  fifty  or  more.  As  Mr. 
Trelease  collected  only  those  pupae  for  transmission  which  were  still 


PHORA   ALETIAE.  209 

alive  or  appeared  parasitized,  we  may  consider  this  as  good  proof  of  the 
true  parasitic  habits  of  the  species. 

With  the  determination  of  the  species  as  belonging  to  the  genus 
PJwra,  however,  all  doubt  as  to  its  parasitic  habits  was  lost,  as  many 
species  of  the  genus  are  known  to  be  parasitic  upon  other  insects.  The 
most  celebrated  species,  perhaps,  is  P.  incrassata  of  Europe,  concerning 
the  habits  of  which  we  quote  the  following  from  an  article  by  Dr.  Pack- 
ard in  the  American  Naturalist  for  1868 : 

An  insect  allied  to  the  Tachina  has  been  found  in  Europe  to  be  the  most  formidable 
foe  of  the  hive-bee,  sometimes  producing  the  well-known  disease  called  "foul-brood," 
which  is  analogous  to  the  typhus  fever  of  man. 

This  fly,  belonging  to  the  genus  Phora,  is  a  small  insect  about  one  line  and  half 
long,  and  found  in  Europe  during  the  summer  and  autumn,  flying  slowly  about  flow- 
ers and  windows  and  in  the  vicinity  of  bee-hives.  Its  white,  transparent  larva  is  cylin- 
drical, a  little  pointed  before,  but  broader  behind.  The  head  is  small  and  rounded  with 
short  three-jointed  anntenre,  and  at  the  posterior  end  of  the  body  are  several  slender 
spines.  The  puparium,  or  pupa-case,  inclosing  the  delicate  chrysalis,  is  oval,  consist- 
ing of  eight  segments,  flattened  above,  and  with  two  large  spines  near  the  head  and 
four  on  the  extremity  of  the  body. 

When  impelled  by  instinct  to  provide  for  the  continuance  of  its  species,  the  Phora 
enters  the  bee-hive  and  gains  admission  to  a  cell,  when  it  bores  with  its  ovipositor 
through  the  skin  of  the  bee  larva,  laying  its  long  oval  egg  in  a  horizontal  position 
just  under  the  skin.  The  embryo  of  the  Phora  is  already  well  developed,  so  that  in 
three  hours  after  the  egg  is  inserted  in  the  body  of  its  unsuspecting  and  helpless  host 
the  embryo  is  nearly  ready  to  hatch.  In  about  two  hours  more  it  actually  breaks  off 
the  larger  end  of  the  egg-shell,  and  at  once  begins  to  eat  the  fatty  tissues  of  its  victim, 
its  posterior  half  still  remaining  in  the  shell.  In  an  hour  more  it  leaves  the  egg 
entirely  and  buries  itself  completely  in  the  fatty  portion  of  the  young  bee. 

The  maggot  moults  three  times.  In  twelve  hours  after  the  last  molt  it  turns 
around  with  its  head  toward  the  posterior  end  of  the  body  of  its  host,  and  in  another 
twelve  hours,  having  become  full-fed,  it  bores  through  the  skin  of  the  young,  eats  its 
way  through  the  broad  covering  of  the  cell,  and  falls  to  the  bottom  of  the  hive,  when 
it  changes  to  a  pupa  in  the  dust  and  dirt,  or  else  it  creeps  out  of  the  door  and  trans- 
forms in  the  earth.  Twelve  days  after  the  fly  appears. 

The  young  bee,  emaciated  and  enfeebled  by  the  attacks  of  its  ravenous  parasite, 
dies,  and  its  decaying  body  fills  the  bottom  of  the  cell  with  a  slimy  foul-smelling 
mass,  called  "foul-brood."  This  gives  rise  to  a  miasma  which  poisons  the  neighbor- 
ing brood,  until  the  contagion  (for  the  disease  is  analogous  to  typhus,  jail,  or  ship 
fever)  spreads  through  the  whole  hive,  unless  promptly  checked  by  removing  the 
cause  and  thoroughly  cleansing  the  hive. 

Foul-brood  sometimes  attacks  our  American  hives,  and,  though  the  cause  may  not 
be  known,  yet  from  the  hints  given  above  we  hope  to  have  the  history  of  our  suecies 
of  Phora  cleared  up,  should  our  disease  be  found  to  be  sometimes  due  to  the  attacks  of 
such  a  parasite  fly. 

Mr.  Edward  Burgess  informs  me,  after  comparing  specimens  of  the 
Phora  bred  from  Aletia  with  the  types  in  the  Cambridge  collection,  that 
this  is  probably  a  new  species.  I  will  therefore  provisionally  designate 
it  as  Phora  aletiae,  and  submit  the  following  description  to*  accompany 
the  figures : 
PHOIIA  ALETIAE,  n.  sp. 

LARVA.— Length  of  mature  larva  about  3.6mm. ;  tapers  gradually  from  the  9th  seg- 
ment towards  the  head;  color  milk-white;  body  very  much   wrinkled,  the  wholo 
surface  sparsely  beset  with  short,  backward-directed  teeth,  which  arft  most  conspic- 
14  c  I 


210 


EEPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 


nous  and  quite  numerous  at  and  near  the  lateral  edge ;  antennae  short,  2-jointed,  1st 
joint  yery  short  and  thick,  the  2d  scarcely  one-half  the  diameter  of  the  1st,  slightly 
conical  and  rounded  at  tip ;  the  1st  thoracic  segment  bears  6  quite  long,  pointed 
tubercles,  arranged  in  a  curve  around  its  lateral  and  front  margin ;  the  stigmata  are 
upon  short  processes,  and,  are  placed  close  together  near  the  middle  of  the  segment ; 
all  other  segments,  except  the  two  last,  have  on  each  side  one  quite  long,  slender 
tubercle,  somewhat  posterior  to  the  middle,  and,  in  a  transverse  row  dorsally,  4  short, 
fleshy,  conical  tubercles  and  a  somewhat  longer  one  ventrally  near  the  lateral  edge, 

a  little  in  front  of  the  lateral 
one ;  the  12th  segment  has  its 
spiracles,  which  are  situated 
near  its  center,  prolonged  into 
rather  long,  fleshy  tubercles; 
this  segment  bears  on  each  side 
two  tubercles,  one  at  the  ante- 
rior and  the  other  at  the  pos- 
terior angle ;  the  last  segment 
is  furnished  with  4  tubercles, 
one  on  each  of  the  posterior 
angles  and  two  near  the  center 
of  its  posterior  margin,  the  two 
lateral  ones  longest. 

PUPA.— Length  2.8mm;  color 
light  brown ;  the  whole  surface 
FIG.  49.— Phora  aletiae.  is  covered  with  small  roundish 

granules,  which  are  the  remnants  of  the  tooth-like  processes  which  were  noticed 
on  the  larva  ;  from  the  1st  abdominal  segment  the  body  tapers  rapidly  to  the  head ; 
the  1st  abdominal  segment  bears  dorsally,  near  its  front  margin,  two  very  conspicuous 
black  horns,  slightly  directed  backward ;  the  lower  two-thirds  of  each  horn  is 
nearly  straight,  and  the  last  third  is  curved  gently  outward;  it  is  thickest  at  its 
base,  and  becomes  slightly  thinner  towards  its  apex;  all  the  lateral  tubercles  and  the 
last  pair  of  spiracles  are  very  much  reduced  in  size  in  comparison  with  the  correspond- 
ing ones  in  the  larva,  the  tubercles  of  the  last  segment,  however,  remaining  of  nearly 
the  same  size;  the  dorsal  portion,  between  the  horns  and  the  last  pair  of  spiracles,  is 
greatly  convex,  the  lateral  margin  being  flattened;  it  is  traversed  in  nearly  equal  dis- 
tances by  4  prominent,  rounded,  double  ridges :  each  of  the  2  posterior  ridges,  which 
are  somewhat  broader  and  higher  than  the  front  ones,  bear  4  round  warts,  which  are 
the  remnants  of  the  dorsal  tubercles  of  the  larva,  and  the  last  pair  of  spiracles  is  situ- 
ated on  a  rounded  elevation;  the  ventral  portion  is  slightly  rounded  and  without  any 
particular  markings. 

IMAGO.— Female:  Length  of  body,  2.3mro;  front  of  head  dark  yellow,  beset  with 
16  stiff,  black,  spine-like  hairs;  eyes  black,  coarsely  faceted,  covered  with  minute 
black  hairs,  and  edged  posteriorly  with  some  longer  spines;  antennae  5-jointed;  1st 
joint  very  much  swollen,  almost  globular,  and  very  hairy;  the  next  3  joints  are  very 
small,  all  three  together  not  longer  than  the  1st,  having  only  about  one-fifteenth  of  the 
diameter  of  the  1st ;  the  2d  and  3d  are  about  equal  in  length ;  the  4th  is  a  little  shorter ; 
all;  are  slightly  thinner  towards  the  base,  beset  with  fine  hair;  the  2d  joint  is  inserted 
on  the  upper  side  at  about  the  middle  of  the  outer  margin  of  the  1st  segment;  the  5th 
joint,  or  bristle,  is  very  long  and  delicate,  and  is  closely  beset  with  short,  spine-like- 
hairs;  the  labium,  when  extended,  is  quite  long  and  fleshy,  and  seems  to  be  composed 
of  4  pieces  or  iobes ;  the  basal  piece  is  somewhat  narrower  than  the  2d,  which  broadens 
at  its  middle ;  the  3d  piece  is  somewhat  smaller  than  the  2d,  straight  posteriorly  and 
gently  rounding  towards  the  apex ;  the  last  piece  is  very  minute  and  knob-like ;  the 
labium  is  sparsely  beset  with  quite  long  hairs ;  the  maxillary  palpi  are  2-jointed,  the  1st 
very  short,  scarcely  noticeable,  the  2d  very  long,  petiolated,  with  its  apical  half  broadened 


SUMMARY.  211 

into  an  oval  pad,  curved  inward,  and  beset  on  its  outer  edge  with  five  or  six  barbed  spines ; 
thorax  dark  yellow,  covered  with  small  black  hairs,  which  give  it  a  slightly  dusky 
appearance ;  a  few  long  black  spines  are  arranged  around  base  of  wings  and  sides 
of  the  thorax ;  abdomen  dusky ;  venter  yellowish,  dusky  towards  the  end ;  the  1st 
segment  dorsally  has  near  its  base  a  very  narrow  transverse  black  baud;  the  poste- 
rior margin  is  yellow ;  on  the  2d  segment  is  a  very  broad,  nearly  rectangular,  trans- 
verse black  patch,  which  leaves  only  a  narrow  yellow  margin  posteriorly ;  the  3d 
and  4th  have  each  a  somewhat  squarish  black  spot,  reaching  from  front  to  hind  mar- 
gin, having  its  sides  somewhat  concave ;  the  spot  on  the  3d  segment  is  nearly  divided 
from  the  front  to  its  posterior  margin  by  a  triangular  yellow  center,  which  is  broadest 
in  front ;  the  4th  has  Only  a  very  small  triangular  spot  at  its  front  margin  ;  (in  the 
darker  specimens  this  black  spot  is  surrounded  by  a  narrow  yellow  line  which  is  not 
noticeable  in  the  lighter  ones) ;  the  5th  and  6th  segments  have  each  a  somewhat 
squarish,  transverse,  black  spot,  and  both  spots  of  these  segments  are  divided  only  by 
a  very  small,  transverse,  yellow  spot ;  there  are  a  veiy  few  short  hairs  at  the  incisures 
between  the  segments  dorsally  and  ventrally  ;  the  body  is  quite  smooth  when  distended 
with  eggs,  but  soon  after  a  few  of  the  eggs  are  deposited  becomes  much  wrinkled 
longitudinally ;  the  ovipositor,  when  fully  extended,  is  seen  to  be  composed  of  5  joints, 
and  is  then  about  one-third  the  length  of  the  abdomen ;  joints  2  and  4  are  quite  hairy, 
and  also  the  small  terminal  joint ;  joints  1  and  3  are  smooth ;  legs  yellow,  profusely 
beset  with  quite  long  black  hairs ;  there  are  a  few  long  spines  around  the  apex  of  coxae 
of  all  the  legs ;  the  femora  of  all  the  legs,  especially  of  the  3d  pair,  are  very  much 
swollen  at  their  middle ;  the  tibiae  of  the  2d  pair  of  legs  do  not  reach  the  base  of 
femora  when  folded,  but  those  of  the  last  pair  are  as  long  as  the  femora ;  the  tibiae 
of  2d  and  3d  pair  of  legs  are  furnished  at  the  front  of  their  tips  with  three  spurs,  one 
large  and  two  small  ones ;  the  large  spur  of  the  middle  tibiae  stands  between  the  two 
smaller  ones,  and  the  one  of  the  last  tibia?  stands  on  the  outside  of  the  tip,  just  below 
the  outer  small  spur ;  the  large  spur  of  middle  legs  is  nearly  twice  as  long  as  that  of 
the  last  tibiae ;  the  tarsal  joints  of  front  legs  are  without  spurs,  but  those  of  the  other 
two  pairs  are  furnished  at  their  tips  with  two  short  spurs  and  are  lined,  besides  these 
terminal  spurs,  on  their  front  sides,  with  two  rows  of  similar  spines  or  spurs;  wings, 
faintly  yellowish,  beset  with  extremely  minute  hairs;  the  costa  is  provided  with  a 
double  row  of  long  and  acute  spines,  and  the  remaining  portion  of  the  margin,  except 
a,  short  piece  near  the  inner  side  of  basis,  with  extremely  minute  cilia ;  this  basal  por- 
tion is  furnished  also  with  7  or  8  spines  similar  to  those  of  the  costa ;  rims,  yellowish  ; 
halteres  3-jointed,  the  last  joint  oblong  oval. 

Male:  The  male  is  about  one-third  the  size  of  the  female.  There  are  scarcely  any 
distinguishable  differences  between  it  and  the  female,  except  that  in  the  male  the 
dorsal  portion  of  the  abdomen  is  entirely  blackish. 

From  present  indications,  this  insect  bids  fair  to  be  one  of  the  most 
important,  as  it  is  one  of  the  most  interesting,  of  the  parasites  of  the 
cotton-worm. 

IMPORTANCE    OF   THE    NATURAL    ENEMIES    OF    THE     COTTON-WORM — 
SUMMARY. 

From  a  perusal  of  this  chapter  it  is  doubtful  if  the  reader  has  obtained 
a  very  definite  idea  of  the  actual  amount  of  good  performed  by  the  nat- 
ural enemies  of  the  cotton-worm,  except  that  it  is  by  no  means  insignifi- 
cant. It  would,  indeed,  be  a  difficult  task  to  estimate  the  number  of 
cotton-worms,  in  one  stage  or  another,  that  are  destroyed  every  year  by 
the  different  birds  and  insects ;  but  we  will  bring  together  in  this  sum- 
mary such  points  as  relate  to  the  amount  of  good  performed,  hoping  to 
set  the  importance  of  the  subject  forth  in  a  more  definite  light. 


212  KEPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

Among  the  vertebrate  enemies,  it  will  be  of  interest  in  this  connection 
to  be  able  to  form  an  idea  of  the  actual  number  of  insects  destroyed  by 
the  average  insectivorous  bird.  As  concise  a  statement  of  facts  upon 
this  point  as  we  have  met  with  is  given  in  Professor  Aughey's  report  to 
the  United  States  Entomological  Commission,  from  which  we  have  already 
quoted  in  the  early  part  of  this  chapter.*  Professor  Aughey  says : 

Few  unobservant  people  have  any  comprehension  of  the  vast  number  of  insects  that 
birds  actually  destroy.  During  the  breeding-season  this  destruction  of  insects  by  birds 
reached  its  culmination.  The  young  of  some  species  will  eat.  about  50,  others  about 
60,  some  about  75  insects  each  day.  The  average  cannot  be  far  from  60.  At  this  rate 
rive  young  birds  would  eat  about  300  insect  each  day,  or  about  9,000  a  month  for  each 
month,  exclusive  of  the  parents.  There  have  been  widely  different  estimates  as  to  the 
number  of  insects  that  the  old  birds  eat,  but  it  ought  not  to  be  difficult  to  approximate 
the  quantity.  Only  a  small  part  of  a  bird's  stomach  is  entire  enough  to  be  distin- 
guished and  counted.  If  the  balance  is  composed  as  largely  of  insects,  which  is  more 
than  probable,  then  the  whole  number  eaten  during  a  day  by  an  insectivorous  bird 
must  be  near  200.  I  reached  the  same  conclusion  by  actual  tests.  In  the  fall  of  1874 
I  bought  two  Bartramian  plovers  from  some  boys  who  had  trapped  them,  and  kept  them 
for  a  week  in  a  cage  before  they  were  set  free.  I  fed  them  on  locusts  and  other  insects, 
which  I  counted  for  four  days  with  the  following  result : 

First  day 277 

Second  day 452 

Third  day 448 

Fourth  day 439 

Total 1,616 

Average  per  day 404 

Average  for  each 202 

I  was  compelled  to  go  away  or  else  the  experiment  would  have  been  continued 
longer. 

About  one-fourth  of  the  insects  were  locusts,  and  the  balance  were  flies,  ants,  beetles, 
&c.  I  gave  them  whatever  insects  the  boys  that  I  hired  gathered  for  me.  My  im- 
pression, however,  is  that  they  ate  less  than  they  would  have  done  if  they  had  been 
at  liberty.  But,  lest  there  might  tte  some  mistake,  and  to  avoid  all  possibility  of  error 
on  the  wrong  side,  we  will  base  our  calculations  on  an  estimate  of  150  insects  each  day 
for  a  mature  plover.  At  this  rate  20  old  plovers  would  eat  3,000  insects  each  day,  or 
90,000  a  month.  And  suppose  further  that  these  20  plovers  had  nests  which  averaged 
four  young  ones  each.  At  60  insects  a  day  for  each  young  plover  the  40  would  con- 
sume 2,400  every  twenty-four  hours,  or  72,000  a  month.  The  20  plovers  and  their 
progeny  together  would  consume  162,000  insects  each  month.  At  this  same  rate  1,000 
plovers  and  their  young  would  consume  in  one  month  8,100,000  insects.  That  many 
insects  removed  in  one  year  from  a  farm  of  160  acres  would  probably  render  it  capable 
of  producing  crops  even  when  these  insects  were  doing  their  worst.  As  there  are  many 
birds  that  eat  more  insects  than  do  the  plovers,  as  well  as  many  that  eat  less,  150  in- 
sects a  day  is  probably  a  fair  average  for  all  insectivorous  birds. 

This  extract  is  eloquent  as  a  defense  of  birds  and  puts  us  on  a  sound 
basis  of  apparently  unexaggerated  facts.  Too  much,  then,  can  hardly 
be  said  in  favor  of  insectivorous  birds  in  cotton-fields.  We  have  entered 
into  the  English-sparrow  question  somewhat  at  length.  Every  day  brings 
confirmatory  evidence  in  support  of  the  conclusions  at  which  we  have 

*  First  annual  report  of  the  United  States  Entomological  Commission,  1877.  Rocky 
Mountain  Locust,  Department  Interior,  1878. 


SUMMARY.  213 

arrived.  Eeports  have  reached  us  of  the  attempted  colonization  of  this 
bird  in  parts  of  the  cotton-growing  regions  of  Texas.  The  persons  who 
carried  this  plan  out  did  not  learn  from  experience  of  the  bad  habits  of 
the  sparrow  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  would  not  stay.  In  a  very 
short  time  after  their  importation  in  considerable  numbers  hardly  a  spar- 
row was  to  be  found  in  the  State.  Persons  interested  in  the  experiment 
believed  that  the  climate  was  too  warm,  and  suggested  as  the  only  means 
of  bird  relief  the  importation  of  some  South  American  sparrow  of  sim- 
ilar habits.  We  very  much  doubt,  however,  if  any  bird  could  be  intro- 
duced which  would  prove  a  greater  blessing  than  any  one  of  many  birds 
indigenous  to  the  cotton  States,  if  equally  encouraged. 

With  the  exception  of  the  ants,  predaceous  insects  are  hardly  to  be 
compared  either  to  the  birds  or  to  the  parasitic  insects  in  regard  to  the 
number  of  cotton  worms  which  they  destroy.  True,  the  capacity  of  some 
of  them  is  great,  but  they  either  labor  under  disadvantages  (such  as  being 
comparatively  confined  to  the  ground,  as  the  carabid  beetles)  or  are  not 
sufficiently  numerous  to  do  a  very  great  amount  of  good.  Still  it  is  well 
to  know  them  and  not  destroy  them,  as  thousands  of  worms  are  destroyed 
by  them,  and  it  is  only  in  a  comparative  way  that  we  speak  at  all  dep- 
recatingly  of  them.  The  capacity  of  the  rear-horses  (Mantis  Carolina) 
has  been  shown  by  the  statement  that  one  individual  has  in  one  night 
killed  and  devoured  eleven  Colorado  potato-beetles,  and  we  have  men- 
tioned the  fact  that  a  young  specimen  of  the  wheel-bug  (Prionotus  cris- 
tatus  [Reduvius  novenarius] )  has  been  known  to  destroy  ten  caterpillars 
in  five  hours,  thus  showing  the  amount  of  good  which  may  be  done  by  the 
hemipterous  enemies  of  the  cotton- worm.  The  destructive  powers  of  the 
asilus-fl ies  have  been  shown  from  Mr.  Thompson's  statement  that  he  has 
known  one  individual  to  destroy  141  bees  in  a  day.  The  work  of  ants 
in  this  direction  has  been  discussed  at  length,  and  they  are  shown  to  be 
the  most  valuable  of  the  predaceous  insect  enemies  of  the  cotton- w^orm. 

The  destruction  of  the  cotton- worms  by  their  true  parasites  is  a  sub- 
ject upon  which  interesting  experiments  may  be  made.  The  extent  of 
parasitism  will  undoubtedly  vary  much  with  the  season  of  the  year,  the 
last  brood  always  seeming  to  be  much  more  extensively  parasitized  than 
any  of  the  preceding  broods.  The  probabilities  are  that  they  increase 
with  the  increasing  numbers  of  the  worms,  and  that  they  also  are  affected 
to  a  certain  extent  by  the  character  of  the  season,  although  not  com- 
parably with  the  ants.  From  August  12  to  August  28,  1721  pupae, 
probably  belonging  to  the  fourth  brood,  were  received  at  the  depart- 
ment from  Mr.  Trelease  at  Miuters,  Dallas  County,  Alabama,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  the  extent  of  the  parasitism.  The  result  hardly 
justified  the  anticipation.  From  this  lot  of  1,721  chrysalides  there  is- 
sued in  all  1,455  moths,  and  from  the  remaining  266  chrysalides  were 
bred  the  following  parasites:  Of  Chalcis  ovata,  Say,  32  specimens;  of 
Tachina  aletiae,  Kiley,  3  specimens ;  Of  Sarcophaga  sp.,  7  specimens ; 
of  Pimpla  anulipeSj  Br.,  1  specimen ;  of  Tachina  sp .,  2  specimens ;  of 


214  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

Didictyum  zigzag  sp.,  32  specimens ;  of  the  small  Dipteron  Phora  aletiae, 
a  very  great  number  of  specimens ;  making  altogether  of  the  large 
parasites  44,  each  singly  from  a  chrysalis,  and  120  chrysalides  destroyed 
by  the  small  parasites,  making  a  total  of  104  out  of  1,721,  or  between  9 
and  10  per  cent.  The  remaining  102  died  from  some  unknown  cause. 
This  percentage  is  small,  but  in  the  last  brood  it  would  unoubtedly 
be  greater. 

The  extravagant  ideas  of  Dr.  Gorham  on  the  subject  of  the  extent  of 
parasitism  are  easily  accounted  for.  He  collected  his  specimen  chrysa- 
lides for  observation  late  in  the  fall,  after  the  hibernating  moths  had 
issued.  Naturally,  no  apparently  sound  chrysalides  were  left  excepting 
those  containing  parasites.  These  he  collected,  and  parasites  issued 
from  all;  hence  his  conclusions.  A  little  note  from  one  of  Professor 
Willet's  letters  seems  to  indicate  the  greater  abundance  of  parasites 
in  the  last  brood  than  in  the  earlier  ones.  He  collected  a  number  of 
newly-formed  chrysalides  in  November.  Of  these  he  says : 

About  two  dozen  were  placed  in  a  box  in  my  sitting-room,  expecting  to  hatch  out 
some  moths  for  exposure.  The  following  is  the  result :  In  some  two  weeks  two  moths 
came  out;  they  seemed  delicate,  and  one  lived  only  two  days,  the  other  four  or  five. 
No  other  moths  have  appeared  (December  tl).  November  24, 1  found  four  ichneumon 
flies  (Pimpla  conquUitor)  out  in  one  boll ;  December  2,  one  more,  and  December  7  an- 
other ;  the  sixth,  the  last,  with  no  ovipositor  (a  male).  In  breaking  open  the  dried 
chrysalides  I  destroyed  two  pupae  of  parasites.  These  make  eight  parasites  in  some 
two  dozen  chrysalides — a  large  proportion.  I  had  75  chrysalides  in  a  box  in  summer ; 
about  50  came  out  moths ;  most  of  the  others  could  not  escape  from  and  perished  in 
the  dried  leaves.  I  saw  not  a  parasite  of  any  kind. 

An  encouraging  statement  concerning  the  extensive  parasitism  of  an 
early  brood  (the  third)  is  contained  in  a  letter  from  Mr.  Trelease  of  July 
24,  1879.  He  stated  that  at  that  time  nearly  one-half  of  the  half-grown 
worms  in  the  fields  under  his  observation  bore  the  eggs  of  one  of  the 
Tachina  parasites.  One-half  is  certainly  a  large  proportion,  but  he  re- 
iterates it  with  exactness  in  his  notes,  and  stands  ready  to  vouch  for  it. 
It  seems  not  at  all  unlikely  when  Ave  consider  the  numbers  in  which  the 
northern  species  of  Tachina  occur  in  fields  ravaged  by  the  northern  army- 
worm.  In  a  field  which  was  black  with  these  worms  I  have  searched 
for  hours  without  finding  a  single  unparasitized  full-grown  worm.  Nine 
hundred  and  ninety-nine  out  of  a  thousand  bore  the  white  eggs  of  the 
destroyer. 

These  few  points  will  be  sufficient,  perhaps,  to  give  a  more  accurate 
idea  of  the  importance  of  the  natural  enemies. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
REMEDIES. 

The  most  careful  and  extended  experiments  on  remedies  for  the  ravages 
of  the  cotton-worm  which  have  been  carried  on  under  the  direction  of 
this  department  are  those  conducted  by  Mr.  Trelease  during  the  present 
year  (1879).  These  experiments  were  performed  under  especially  favor- 
able conditions.  Mr.  Trelease  was  located  upon  a  plantation  in  the 
southern  part  of  Dallas  County,  Alabama,  a  locality  in  which  cotton- 
worms  are  especially  destructive ;  he  made  arrangements  by  which  he 
could  call  into  service  all  the  help  on  the  place  if  necessary.  In  this  way 
he  was  able  to  use  the  remedies  on  a  large  scale,  and  to  carefully  com- 
pare the  results  obtained  by  different  methods.  A  neighboring  jjlanta- 
tion  upon  which  no  efforts  were  made  to  protect  the  cotton  served  also 
for  comparison. 

As  we  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  these  experiments  frequently  in 
the  course  of  this  chapter,  we  give  here  that  part  of  Mr.  Trelease's  re- 
port relating  to  them. 

EEPOET  OF  EXPERIMENTS  BY  MR.  TRELEASE. 

To  prevent  the  caterpillar  from  materially  injuring  the  cotton  crop, 
various  devices  have  been  proposed.  These  may  be  considered  as  pre- 
ventives or  remedies ;  the  first  getting  the  crop  in  such  a  condition  that 
the  worms  cannot  harm  it,  the  second  protecting  the  crop  by  killing  the 
caterpillars. 

In  most  sections  the  first  four  broods  of  larvae  do  no  harm  to  cotton 
on  elevated  dry  soil,  while  the  fifth  brood  does  not  appear  till  late  in 
August  or  even  in  September.  This  has  led  some  planters  to  contend 
that  by  highly  fertilizing  their  land  they  can  force  the  crop  to  early  ma- 
turity, so  that  when  the  worms  appear  it  will  have  stopped  "  making." 
and  the  removal  of  the  leaves  will  then  be  a  decided  advantage  by  allow- 
ing the  sunlight  to  reach  the  lower  bolls,  thus  preventing  them  from 
rotting,  as  they  sometimes  do  if  too  much  shaded.  But  in  practice  it 
appears  that  land  which,  if  unfertilized,  produces  small  cotton,  making 
little  after  the  early  part  of  August,  will,  if  fertilized  and  suitably  culti- 
vated, grow  large  plants  that  continue  to  grow  until  checked  by  cold 
weather.  While,  therefore,  fertilizing  the  land  increases  the  cotton  made 
up  to  the  middle  of  August,  it  also  leaves  the  plants  in  a  vigorous, 
growing  condition  at  the  time  when  the  worms  appear,  so  that  it  is  then 
desirable  to  use  some  remedy. 

With  a  view  to  having  their  cotton  through  making  when  the  worms 
appear,  others  leave  two  or  even  three  plants  where  commonly  only  one 
is  left,  believing  that  early  in  the  season  each  plant  will  grow  and  fruit 

215 


216  EEPORT    UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 

as  well  as  if  it  stood  alone,  the  lack  of  sufficient  nutriment  checking 
their  growth  only  late  in  summer.  Their  argument  is,  it  is  better  to  get 
an  early  crop  on  three  plants  than  to  rely  on  an  early  and  middle  crop 
on  one  plant,  when  the  top  crop  is  likely  to  be  destroyed  by  the  worms. 
Though  it  is  an  error  to  suppose  that  it  is  only  late  in  the  season  that 
these  plants  suffer  from  an  insufficient  supply  of  food,  yet  I  am  inclined 
to  believe  that  on  the  lands  where  no  fertilizer  is  used  this  is  a  good 
practice. 

Another  expedient  is  the  selection  of  a  variety  of  cotton  that  the 
worms  will  not  eat  ;  and  it  is  possible  that  such  a  variety  may  some 
day  be  produced.  Small  quantities  of  a  variety  known  as  worm  and 
nest  proof  are  grown  on  several  plantations  not  far  from  Elm  Bluff,  Ala., 
and  I  had  the  opportunity  of  examining  some  of  the  plants  early  in 
September.  They  were  growing  on  dry,  rather  poor  soil,  were  of  some- 
thing less  than  the  average  size,  but  quite  prolific.  The  green  parts  of 
the  plant  were  deeply  tinged  with  red,  and  this  color  was  quite  noticea- 
ble in  the  corolla.  On  this  cotton  I  found  living  Aletia  eggs,  as  well  as 
spots  where  small  caterpillars  had  eaten  transparent  places  in  the 
leaves,  and  quite  large  holes  eaten  through  the  leaf  by  large  ones.  No 
worms  were  found  on  the  plant,  having  probably  been  removed  by  either 
ants  or  chickens,  for  the  cotton  was  growing  in  a  door-yard  garden. 

With  a  view  to  rendering  the  cotton  distasteful  to  the  caterpillar,  if 
possible,  quassia  chips  were  steeped  and  soaked  in  water  for  about  a 
week  and  a  half,  one  pound  of  chips  being  used  for  each  gallon  of  water. 
This  decoction  was  then  diluted,  from  a  pint  to  a  quart  of  it  being  added 
to  each  bucketful  of  water  (2  gallons),  and  applied  with  a  fountain 
pump  to  infested  cotton,  so  that  every  leaf  was  thoroughly  wet.  In  this 
form  the  infusion  was  intensely  bitter  and  imparted  a  strong  taste  to 
the  cotton  leaves  after  the  water  had  evaporated ;  but  though  several 
applications  were  made  I  could  not  see  that  it  interfered  with  the  feed- 
ing of  the  worms. 

What  I  have  called  remedies  may  be  conveniently  divided  into  two 
classes,  natural  and  artificial ;  and  these  may  be  further  subdivided  as 
shown  in  the  following  table : 
LKatoralremediea 

1.  Poisoned  baits. 

c.  For  moths 2.  Lights  and  fires. 

II.  Artificial  remedies  .  \ 

d.  For  larvae ^2.  Crashing  by  machines. 

(  3.  Prisoning. 

By  natural  remedies  I  wish  to  indicate  the  breeding  and  protection 
of  all  natural  enemies  of  the  species,  whatever  their  nature.  Those  be- 
longing to  the  animal  kingdom  may  be  found  specified  in  that  part  of 
my  report  relating  to  the  natural  enemies  of  Aletia.  In  addition  to 
those  mentioned  there  might  be  included  all  insectivorous  birds.  The 


FUNGOID   DISEASES   VS.    COTTON-WORMS.  217 

European  sparrow  feeding  extensively  on  insects,  some  planters  believe 
that  it  would  make  a  strong  enemy  of  the  caterpillar  if  introduced  ;  but 
from  what  I  know  of  its  nature,  and  from  what  others  who  have  studied 
its  habits  tell  me,  I  believe  it  impracticable  to  make  it  remain  on  a  plan- 
tation, and,  even  if  this  could  be  accomplished,  its  grauivorous  and 
quarrelsome  propensities  would  make  -it  a  pest  that  the  farmers  would 
be  only  too  glad  to  get  rid  of.  All  native  insectivorous  birds  should  be 
protected  by  law,  and  under  no  circumstances  should  one  of  them  be 
killed  or  its  nest  disturbed. 

Under  the  head  of  natural  remedies  belonging  to  the  vegetable  king- 
dom, I  would  place  any  fungi  or  molds  that  may  be  utilized  for  the 
destruction  of  Aletia  in  any  of  its  forms,  if  such  there  be.  In  the  latter 
part  of  July  a  copy  of  an  article  by  Dr.  Hagen  on  the  use  of  fungi  to 
destroy  noxious  insects,  from  the  Canadian  Entomologist,  vol.  xi,  p.  110, 
was  sent  me  from  the  department  with  instruction  to  test  the  matter 
carefully.  I  have  not  the  article  before  me  now,  but  from  the  belief  of 
some  mycologists  that  the  fungus  of  the  house-fly,  the  torulae  of  yeast 
or  beer,  and  the  common  mold  are  forms  of  one  and  the  same  species, 
it  was  recommended  that  the  insects  to  be  destroyed  should  be  showered 
with  dilute  yeast,  from  which  would  be  developed  a  fungus  parasitic  on 
the  insects.  And,  whether  the  identity  of  the  fungi  mentioned  were 
real  or  not,  it  was  stated  that  the  Continental  mycologist,  Dr.  Bail,  had 
demonstrated  that  yeast  or  beer  torulae  sown  on  insects  gave  rise  to  some 
fungus  which  caused  their  death. 

On  the  strength  of  this  statement,  and  knowing  that  different  species 
of  insects  sometimes  die  in  large  numbers  from  fungoid  diseases,  I  tried 
the  following  experiments  with  yeast,  with  the  results  given.  It  should 
be  stated  that  care  was  taken  in  every  instance  to  see  that  the  yeast 
was  in  an  active  state. 

August  1,  during  a  light  shower,  I  applied  a  gallon  of  yeast  in  eight 
gallons  of  water  to  cotton,  on  which  there  were  many  half-grown  cater- 
pillars, as  well  as  numbers  of  small  ones,  using  a  fountain-pump  for  dis- 
tributing the  liquid,  and  being  careful  to  reach  all  parts  of  the  cotton 
with  it,  wetting  it,  indeed,  so  thoroughly  that  the  air  for  some  distance 
was  pervaded  by  a  yeasty  odor.  Before  I  had  finished  the  shower  be- 
came heavier,  and  it  rained  hard  for  a  considerable  part  of  the  .night. 
There  was  more  or  less  rain  nearly  every  day  for  the  succeeding  week. 
Examination  every  few  days  showed  that  no  fungus  was  attacking  the 
worms. 

August  7,  I  applied  several  gallons  of  water,  in  which  was  yeast  in 
proportions  varying  from  one-half  pint  to  one  quart  to  the  gallon  of 
water.  This  was  applied  in  the  morning  while  the  sun  was  shining 
brightly,  and  no  rain  fell  on  it  until  night,  though  more  or  less  rain  fell 
every  day  for  the  next  half  week.  There  were  worms  of  all  sizes  where 
this  was  used,  but  none  were  attacked  by  disease. 

August  13,  more  was  applied  iu  varying  quantities  of  water,  the  day 
being  cloudy,  but  only  negative  results  were  obtained. 


218  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

September  9,  after  sunset  another  gallon  of  yeast  in  four  gallons  of 
water  was  applied  to  cotton  covered  with  young  larvae  and  eggs,  but 
with  no  result,  so  far  as  I  could  see. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  first  of  these  experiments  was  tried  during  a 
rain,  which  endured  for  some  time,  so  that  the  yeast  may  have  been 
washed  from  the  leaves  and  from  the  caterpillars  before  having  an  op- 
portunity to  act;  but  if  any  of  it  adhered  the  damp  weather  following 
was  most  favorable  to  its  development  into  the  parasitic  form.  The 
second  was  tried  when  the  sun  was  shining  early  in  the  morning,  so  that 
it  was  exposed  to  sunlight  for  the  greater  part  of  one  day,  and  could 
not  have  been  removed  by  rain  till  the  following  night.  Like  the  former, 
this  was  subjected  to  damp  weather  for  a  number  of  days.  The  third 
lot  was  applied  in  the  early  part  of  a  cloudy  afternoon,  and  this  was 
subjected  to  rains  the  next  night  and  for  several  days.  The  fourth  lot 
was  applied  after  sunset,  and  there  was  no  rain  on  it  for  three  days. 
Moreover,  these  quantities  of  yeast  were  so  applied  as  to  wet  eggs,  larvae, 
and  pupae  of  Aletia.  Other  applications  were  made  on  a  small  scale  at 
different  times,  but  with  similar  results. 

From  these  experiments  it  appears  that  under  the  most  varied  circum- 
stances, many  of  which  are  very  favorable  to  the  growth  of  fungi,  yeast 
in  an  active  condition  failed  to  produce  any  fungoid  disease  on  either 
the  eggs,  larvae,  or  pupae  of  Aletia.  Furthermore,  larvae  contained  in  a 
tin  box  were  drenched  with  yeast,  being  kept  thoroughly  wet  for  over 
twenty-four  hours,  after  which  a  part  of  the  liquid  was  drained  out,  and 
the  box  remaining  uncleaned,  the  larvae  were  kept  and  fed  in  it  for  a 
week  longer,  at  the  end  of  which  time  they  were  still  living  and  appar- 
ently suffering  from  no  disease.  This  leads  me  to  believe  that  though 
the  Penicilliwm  or  Aspergillus  developed  from  torulae  sometimes  attack 
living  animal  tissues,  they  cannot  be  utilized  for  the  destruction  of  the 
cotton  caterpillar.  Yet,  considering  to  what  an  extent  some  insects 
suffer  from  fungoid  diseases,  it  seems  by  no  means  improbable  that  some 
practical  and  economical  method  of  parasitizing  noxious  insects  may 
some  day  be  discovered. 

Since  the  perfect  form  or  moth  of  Aletia  is  known  to  feed  upon 
sugared  substances  and  fruits,  and  since  it  is  known  to  be  attracted  by 
light  to  a  certain  extent,  it  has  been  thought  possible  to  destroy  the 
moth  by  allowing  it  to  feed  on  poisoned  sweets,  or  by  employing  the 
food  or  lights  to  attract  it  into  traps  of  various  sorts. 

As  will  be  seen  by  referring  to  my  report  on  the  food  of  these  moths, 
they  arc  attracted  in  large  numbers  by  ripe  apples,  peaches,  and  grapes, 
beside  one  or  two  other  less  common  fruits,  but  I  signally  failed  to  at- 
tract them  to  my  mixtures  of  molasses  or  sugar  and  various  substances. 
Though  no  experiments  on  a  large  scale  were  conducted,  I  feel  confident 
that  poisoned  dishes  of  ripened  and  slightly  fermenting  fruits  which 
have  been  bruised,  may  be  advantageously  employed  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  these  moths,  by  placing  them  about  the  cotton-fields  wheu  the 


DESTRUCTION  OF  THE  MOTHS.  219 

moths  are  flying.  I  would  recommend  that  this  be  tried,  especially  on 
warm  days  in  winter,  when  the  moths  are  allured  from  their  hibernac- 
ula  ;  in  the  early  spring,  and  in  the  fall,  after  the  brood  which  destroys 
the  cotton  have  emerged  as  moths. 

From  what  has  been  said  in  the  earlier  agricultural  reports,  and  from 
the  testimony  of  planters  as  to  the  attraction  of  lights  for  these  moths, 
I  had  supposed  that  the  easiest  and  most  scientific  method  of  destroying 
Aletia  was  to  employ  fires  into  which  they  should  be  attracted,  or  lights 
in  combination  with  some  form  of  trap,  either  with  or  without  the  added 
attraction  of  food,  these  to  be  used  whenever  the  moths  were  flying,  and 
their  use  enforced,  if  necessary,  by  legislation.  Considering,  for  the 
above  reasons,  that  the  fondness  of  these  moths  for  light  was  proved, 
I  made  no  efforts  to  obtain  personal  demonstration  of  the  fact,  and  it 
was  only  on  learning  how  many  species  of  moths  and  even  of  other  in- 
sects may  pass  for  Aletia  with  the  ordinary  observer,  and  on  seeing  from 
my  notes  how  little  attention  was  paid  to  the  light  of  my  lantern,  that  I 
began  to  doubt  the  efficacy  of  this  remedy ;  but  this,  unfortunately,  was 
after  I  had  left  the  field.  As  it  is,  I  can  only  say  that  the  number  at- 
tracted to  lights,  as  compared  with  the  entire  number,  was  very  small, 
so  far  as  my  experience  goes.  Though  I  saw  a  few  dozen  attracted  into 
the  house,  thousands  were  in  sight  of  the  light  and  removed  but  a  few 
rods;  while  for  each  of  those  thus  attracted  a  dozen  individuals,  belong- 
ing to  other  species,  came  to  the  light.  My  own  observation,  then,  goes 
to  show  that  these  moths  are  not  attracted  to  any  great  extent  by  lights, 
but  if  this  attraction  should  be  proven  to  be  considerable  this  would 
prove  one  of  the  best  ways  of  dealing  with  the  pest. 

In  the  destruction  of  some  noxious  insects,  especially  those  injurious 
to  the  vegetables  of  the  kitchen  garden,  hand-picking  is  found  very 
efficacious,  and  this  has  been  suggested  as  a  means  of  destroying  the 
cotton-caterpillar.  Where  it  can  be  properly  done,  this  is  undoubtedly 
a  certain  remedy ;  but  for  cotton  as  ordinarily  grown  it  is  impracticable 
for  several  reasons:  1.  Its  great  cost;  2.  The  impossibility  of  getting 
over  the  plantation  before  parts  of  it  should  be  eaten  out;  3.  The  fact 
that  labor  is  almost  invariably  needed  to  house  fodder  at  the  time  when 
this  would  have  to  be  done,  and  could  not  well  be  spared  for  this  work. 

Various  machines  have  been  patented  for  either  shaking  the  cater- 
pillars from  the  plant  or  by  disturbing  them,  causing  them  to  leap  from 
it  voluntarily,  after  which  they  are  crushed  by  some  contrivance.  Though 
I  have  not  seen  these  machines,  I  feel  doubtful  of  their  value  for  the  reason 
that  driving  a  vehicle  of  any  sort  through  very  high  cotton  which  has 
locked  across  the  rows  is  certain  to  injure  it  more  or  less,  and  the  extent 
of  the  injury  will  depend  upon  the  rapidity  of  driving  and  the  amount 
of  concussion  which  the  plants  receive,  any  severe  jolting  causing  the 
bolls  to  fly  off.  From  their  very  nature  these  machines  must  cause  more 
or  less  of  this  jarring,  and  I  believe  that  to  be  true  of  any  machine  in- 
tended to  shake  the  worms  from  the  plant. 


220 


EEPORT    UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 


In  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge  it  seems  that  the  most  effectual 
means  of  destroying  the  cotton-caterpillar  is  by  the  use  of  poisons, 
either  in  the  moist  or  dry  condition.  In  the  former  case,  the  poisonous 
substance  is  dissolved  or  suspended  in  water ;  in  the  latter,  it  is  mixed 
with  flour,  gypsum,  or  other  innocuous  powder,  which  serves  to  dilute 
it,  and  in  some  cases  to  aid  it  in  adhering  to  the  plant.  The  ground 
covered  by  my  experiments  with  poisons  may  be  seen  from  the  follow- 
ing tables : 

I. — TO   TEST   THE  EFFICACY  OF  THE  SUBSTANCES. 

^  (a)  London  purple,  suspended  in  water. 

(b)  Gray  arsenic,  suspended  in  water. 

(c)  Paris  green,  suspended  in  water. 

(d)  Texas  worm-destroyer,  dissolved  in  water. 

(e)  Gray  arsenic,  in  Fowler's  solution. 
(/)  Oil  of  turpentine,  in  water. 

(</)  Kerosene,  in  water. 
(h)  Carbolic  acid,  in  water. 
^  (a)  London  purple,  in  Eoyall's  mixture.* 

jj Dry.    •{  W  Gray  arsenic,  in  Eoyall's  mixture. 

/  (c)  Paris  green,  in  Eoyall's  mixture. 


A Wet. 


II. — TO   TEST   THE  ADHESION  OF  THE   SUBSTANCES. 


A.— Wet. 


B.— Dry. 


(«)  Poisons  suspended  in  water  without  flour-paste. 

(b)  Poisons  suspended  in  water  with  flour-paste. 
(«.)  Poisons  mixed  with  flour. 

(&)  Poisons  mixed  with  flour  and  gypsum. 

(c)  Poisons  mixed  with  flour  and  rosin. 

(d)  Poisons  mixed  with  flour  and  dextrine. 

(e)  Poisons  mixed  with  flour,  rosin,  and  dextrine.t 
(/)  Poisons  mixed  with  flour,  gypsum,  and  rosin. 
(g)  Poisons  mixed  with  flour,  gypsum,  and  dextrine. 

(h)  Poisons  mixed  with  flour,  gypsum,  rosin,  and  dextrine. 
(i)  Poisons  mixed  with  gypsum,  rosin,  and  dextrine. 
(/.•)  Poisons  mixed  with  gypsum  and  rosin. 
(I)  Poisons  mixed  with  gypsum  and  dextrine. 
i.  (m)  Poisons  mixed  with  gypsum. 
All  of  my  wet  poisons  were  applied  by  use  of  Whitman's  fouutain- 
punip,  No.  2.    Where  small  quantities  were  used,  one  man  carried  a  2- 
gallori  water-bucket,  and  another  preceded  him,  working  the  pump. 

*  Royall's  patent :  Flour,  one  barrel,  196  pounds;  Paris  green,  9  pounds;  dextrine, 
10  pounds ;  rosin,  12  pounds. 

The  ingredients  being  in  a  fine  powder,  are  sifted  to  remove  lumps,  after  which  they 
are  thoroughly  mixed.  Other  poisons  may  be  substituted  for  Paris  green. 

11  bid. 


RELATIVE    VALUE    OF    POISONS.  221 

Where  larger  quantities  were  used,  a  40-gallon  barrel  was  placed  in  a 
four-wheeled  wagon  with  wheels  5  feet  apart,  and  the  lowest  axle  23 
inches  from  the  ground.  This  was  drawn  by  two  mules,  b.eing  made  to 
straddle  one  row  of  cotton,  the  mules  walking  in  the  furrows  that  the 
wheels  ran  in.  One  man  drove  the  wagon,  and  two  others,  provided 
with  fountain-pumps,  distributed  the  poison  contained  in  the  barrel, 
wetting  nine  rows  for  each  trip  across  the  field.  Meantime,  one  or  two 
other  men,  with  a  two-horse  wagon,  containing  several  smaller  barrels, 
were  engaged  in  carrying  water  from  a  pond  to  the  ends  of  the  rows  of 
cotton,  where  it  was  transferred  to  the  distributing  wagon.  With  these 
two  pumps  worked  slowly,  the  mules  walking  very  slowly,  we  found  that 
a  barrel  of  water  went  over  about  three  acres  of  cotton,  wetting  it 
fairly,  but  not  so  well  as  was  to  be  desired.  The  men  were  therefore 
made  to  work  the  pumps  faster,  so  that  a  barrel  lasted  for  two  acres. 
Not  satisfied  with  this,  we  enlarged  the  holes  in  the  rose-nozzle  a  little, 
so  that  without  materially  diminishing  the  force  of  the  pump  we  were 
able  to  apply  a  barrel  of  fluid  to  the  acre.*  In  this  way  about  30  acres 
a  day  may  be  poisoned  by  four  hands  and  four  mules. 

My  dry  poisons  were  applied  by  a  sieve  made  of  a  2-quart  tin  bucket, 
the  bottom  of  which  was  replaced  by  perforated  tin,  and  which  was 
provided  with  a  socket  at  the  side  for  the  insertion  of  a  wooden  handle 
about  three  feet  long. 

My  experiments  with  dry  poisons  were  not  extensive  enough  for  me 
to  determine  accurately  the  amount  of  labor  required  to  poison  an  acre; 
but  Mr.  Lide,  the  manager  of  George  O.  Baker's  plantation  at  Selma, 
Ala.,  tells  me  that  a  hand  can  poison  from  one  to  two  acres  of  cotton  per 
day.  He  tells  me,  further,  that  one  barrel  of  Eoyall's  mixture  goes  over 
about  three  acres. 

Before  giving  details  of  the  experiments,  I  may  briefly  state  the  con- 
clusions to  which  they  led  me,  as  follows :  As  an  insecticide  I  prefer 
Paris  green  to  any  other  substance  used,  and  find  it  less  likely  to  injure 
the  cotton  than  any  other.  Next  to  this,  I  should  place  commercial 
arsenic  (arsenious  oxide,  As2  O3),  though  this  is  more  likely  to  scorch 
the  cotton  than  the  preceding.  I  should  place  London  purple  next  in 
the  list,  as  being  less  valuable  as  a  poison  and  more  liable  to  injure  the 
cotton.  Fowler's  solution  of  arsenic  (arsenious  oxide  dissolved  in  a  solu- 
tion of  sodium  or  potassium  carbonate  in  water)  serves  fairly  a»  an  in- 
secticide, but  my  experience  is  that  it  is  very  liable  to  injure  the  cotton, 
probably  owing  to  the  alkaline  nature  of  the  solution.  A  considerable 
quantity  of  the  mixture  known  as  the  Texas  Cotton- Worm  Destroyer 
was  used,  the  directions  accompanying  the  package  being  followed ;  but 
I  failed  to  obtain  satisfactory  results  from  its  use  in  any  trial.  Oil  of 
turpentine,  kerosene,  and  carbolic  acid  in  water  were  applied  but  when 
applied  so  as  to  kill  the  caterpillars  I  found  that  they  always  injured  the 
plant. 

*  It  is  far  better  to  employ  the  larger  size  of  pump,  which,  from  its  greater  capacity, 
distributes  more  water  than  the  one  used  by  me,  and  with  less  labor. 


222 


REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 


The  cheapest  mode  of  applying  the  poisons  is  undoubtedly  in  the  wet 
form ;  and  I  find  that  they  adhere  as  well  when  suspended  in  pure  water 
as  when  paste  is  used,  though  this  aids  in  their  suspension.  Whenever 
a  solid  is  used  in  suspension,  frequent  stirring  is  needed  to  keep  it  evenly 
distributed  through  the  water.  In  Boyall's  patent  the  flour  is  sup- 
posed to  act  as  a  diluent ;  the  rosin,  to  melt  by  the  heat  of  the  sun  and 
thus  affix  the  poison  to  the  leaves  of  the  plant ;  the  dextrine,  to  melt  and 
gum  the  poison  to  the  leaves  under  the  action  of  water,  either  as  dew  or 
rain.  My  experiments  showed  me  that  flour  alone  adhered  nearly  as 
long  as  this  mixture;  and  even  that  it  might  be  replaced  in  part  by  gyp- 
sum or  land  plaster,  but  that  gypsum  alone,  or  replacing  all  of  the  flour 
in  Royall's  patent,  was  removed  by  the  first  rain  as  a  general  thing. 
The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  first  dew  converts  the  flour  into  a  paste, 
which  becomes  attached  to  the  leaf,  and  considerable  rain  is  needed  to 
dissolve  and  remove  it.  I  find  that  one  pound  of  Paris  green,  applied 
in  forty  gallons  of  water  to  an  acre  of  cotton,  will  kill  the  worms  to  a 
certainty  without  injuring  the  cotton  to  any  appreciable  extent,  pro- 
vided there  is  no  rain  on  it  for  several  days ;  but  the  dry  poison,  using 
about  twice  as  much  Paris  green  to  the  acre,  is  equally  certain  and  sale, 
and  will  withstand  far  more  rain,  even  if  merely  mixed  with  flour.  Ow- 
ing to  the  cost  of  the  flour,  however,  and  the  greater  cost  of  applying  it, 
the  dry  poison  is  far  more  expensive  than  the  wet. 

A. — WET  POISONS. 

August  7,  nine  barrels  of  water  were  applied,  going  over  about  three 
acres  to  the  barrel.  The  time  spent  was  from  9  a.  m.  to  sunset,  and  the 
first  rain  fell  at  about  nine  o'clock  the  next  morning.  The  substances 
used,  their  quantities,  and  the  number  of  dead  worms  just  before  the 
rain  began  are  shown  by  the  following  table : 

I. — Wet  poisons  applied  August  7,  1879. 


Number  of  barrels. 

Name  of  poison. 

Quantity  of 
poison. 

Quantity  of 
paste. 

Dead  worms. 

1  

Texas  worm-destroyer  .  . 

Measure  

None. 
Very  few. 

Few.0' 
Vegrfcw. 

Do. 

Very  few  or  n 

me. 

2 

10  ounces  
21  ounces  
21  ounces  
20  ounces  
10  ounces  
20  ounces  

i  gallon... 
1  gallon... 
1  gallon... 
1  gallon... 
1  gallon  .  . 
li  gallons. 

3 

4                         

Paris  green  
London  purple  
Paris  green  
Gray  arsenic  
Texas  worm-destroyer  .  . 
do  

5 

«  

7 

g 

9     

Rains  occurred  nearly  every  day  for  about  a  week  after  this  was  ap- 
plied. On  the  9th  of  August  I  found  no  dead  worms,  and  examination 
with  a  lens  showed  very  little  poison  on  the  leaves ;  nor  was  the  cotton 
scorched  except  in  one  or  two  places  where  the  poison  was  a  little  thicker 
than  usual ;  but  vines  of  the  cow-pea  growing  in  the  field  were  considera- 
bly injured.  The  caterpillars  continuing  to  eat,  we  again  poisoned  this 
cotton  on  the  llth,  12th,  and  13th  of  August. 


EXPERIMENTS    WITH    WET   POISONS. 


223 


In  the  following  table  the  quantity  of  poison  per  barrel  of  water  is 
given,  but  in  some  sections  several  barrels  were  used : 


Date. 

i 

Name  of  poison. 

Quantity    o  f 
poison    per 
barrel 

Quantity  of 

Length  of  time 
before  ram. 

Dead  worms 
after  24  hours. 

1879. 
t 

10 

Paris  preen  

24  ounces  

2  gallons.. 

(A  fair  number. 

Aug.    llj 

Aug.    12 
Ang     13 

11 
12 

u 

14 

London  purple  
Gray  arsenic  
Paris  green  

10  ounces  
20  ounces  
24  ounces  

2  gallons.. 
2  gallons.. 
2  gallons.. 

>54  hours  average 
SOhours  average. 

(Few. 
Many. 

*In  all  of  my  experiments  where  paste  was  used  it  was  made  by  boiling  wheat-flour  in  water,  so  as 
to  be  a  trifle  thicker  than  the  starch  commonly  used  for  stiffening  linen  articles.  Some  farmers,  to 
avoid  the  labor  of  boiling  the  paste,  allow  flour  to  ferment  in  water,  obtaining  a  very  good  article  in  this 
way.  In  either  case  it  should  be  strained  through  muslin.  Mr.  Patrick  Calahan,  of  Selma,  merely  stirs 
two  pounds  of  common  starch  in  a  bucketful  of  cold  water,  which  is  then  added  to  40  gallons  of  water 
containing  the  poison. 

When  applying  the  poisons  to  sections  10  to  14,  inclusive,  we  used 
two  mules  to  draw  the  distributing  wagon,  in  which  were  the  driver 
and  two  hands  with  pumps.  Another  hand,  with  a  two-mule  wagon, 
was  engaged  in  drawing  water  from  a  pond  to  the  ends  of  the  cotton 
rows,  where  it  was  transferred  to  the  other  wagon.  Owing  to  the  low 
specific  gravity  of  London  purple,  the  bulk  of  a  pound  of  it  is  far  greater 
than  that  of  an  equal  bulk  of  arsenic  or  Paris  green,  and  the  hands  com- 
plained that  it  pumped  out  harder  than  either  of  the  other  poisons 
named.  Certain  it  is,  that,  other  conditions  being  about  the  same,  a 
barrel  went  over  three  acres  in  section  11,  while  in  12, 13,  and  14  it  went 
over  only  two.  On  section  10  the  pumps  were  worked  less  rapidly,  so  that 
a  barrel  of  water  went  over  three  acres.  Twenty-four  hours  after  each 
section  was  poisoned  I  examined  it  to  see  what  eifect  the  poison  had 
produced  on  the  worms  and  cotton,  and  leaves  plucked  here  and  there 
were  examined  with  a  lens  to  discover  how  thoroughly  the  finely  divided 
poison  was  applied.  There  was  a  considerable  number  of  worms  dead 
on  section  10,  and  most  of  the  others  died  before  the  first  rainfall.  The 
Paris  green  could  be  seen  in  very  fine  particles  in  the  minute  hollows 
everywhere  on  the  surface  of  the  leaf.  The  cotton  plant  was  not  in  the 
least  injured.  On  section  11  the  percentage  of  dead  worms  after  twenty- 
four  hours  was  considerably  less  than  on  10,  but  before  the  rain  fell  the 
greater  part  of  the  others  were  dead.  The  poison  appeared  as  a  fine 
purple  bloom  on  the  surface  of  the  leaf,  and  iu  a  good  many  places  the 
leaves  were  scorched  seriously.  The  arsenic  used  on  section  12  did  not 
scorch  the  cotton,  nor  did  it  kill  many  worms  at  first,  but  later  it 
destroyed  a  good  number.  By  far  the  best  results  were  obtained  on 
section  13,  where  the  worms  were  quickly  and  thoroughly  killed,  and 
only  at  long  intervals  could  a  scorched  leaf  be  found.  Though  the  Texas 
worm-destroyer,  used  on  section  14,  was  applied  according  to  directions, 
it  being  stated  that  more  than  one  measure,  about  4£  ounces  to  the 


224 


REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 


barrel  of  water,  would  injure  the  cotton,  it  killed  remarkably  few 
caterpillars. 

A  light  but  steady  rain  fell  all  of  the  night  following  August  13,  con- 
tinuing through  the  next  day  and  night  and  a  part  of  the  15th.  An 
examination  of  the  cotton  after  this  rain  showed  that  little  poison  was 
then  adhering  to  the  leaves.  In  all  of  my  experiments  I  found  that  full 
grown  caterpillars  never  ate  the  poison,  but  webbed  up  immediately 
after  it  was  applied.  These  excepted,  there  were  few  living  worms  on 
any  of  these  sections  excepting  14  where  I  could  not  see  that  the  poison 
had  done  any  good.  On  the  21st  of  August  most  of  the  foliage  had 
been  eaten  from  this  section,  while  little  was  removed  from  the  adjoin- 
ing ^ection  13.  When  I  compared  section  12  with  the  impoisoned  cotton 
on  a  neighboring  plantation — from  which  it  was  separated  only  by  a 
ditch — at  this  latter  date,  I  could  see  that  the  arsenic  had  done  good, 
for  the  cotton  was  not  nearly  so  badly  eaten  where  the  poison  was  used 
as  just  across  the  ditch,  and  at  the  time  of  poisoning  it  was  infested 
worse  than  the  other. 

Much  of  this  cotton  was  as  high  as  the  top  of  the  wagon-box,  and 
there  was  none  that  was  not  bent  as  the  axle  passed  over  it ;  yet  I  found 
that  very  little  damage  was  done  by  driving  down  the  rows,  though  oc- 
casionally bolls  were  jolted  off,  and  now  and  then  the  driver  ran  the 
wheels  on  a  row  so  as  to  injure  it,  but  this  was  the  result  of  careless- 
ness. Unless  cotton  is  very  high  and  closely  interlocked  between  the 
rows  I  should  not  hesitate  to  drive  a  large-wheel  wagon  over  it  if 
necessary  in  poisoning. 

August  29,  five  sections  were  poisoned  as  shown  in  the  following  table. 
But  one  pump  was  used,  the  nozzle  of  which  had  been  reamed  so  as  to 
discharge  a  larger  quantity  of  water  for  a  given  expenditure  of  labor. 
With  this  we  were  able  to  distribute  40  gallons  of  water  per  acre.  As 
before,  one  man  drove  and  another  hauled  water  to  the  side  of  the  field. 


1 

1 

© 

1 

Date. 

i 

Name  of  poison. 

| 

p 

I1 

}! 

|| 

/•   jj 

16  ounces 

i  ••>   •  <t> 

1C 

t  nuirts 

Au".  29,  1879 

\    1? 

10  ounces  - 

4  gallons.. 

>  48  hours  -j 

I-Yw. 

I   19 

London  purple  .'  

8  ounces  .  . 

2  gallons  .  . 

J                 I 

Very  few. 

*  Asz  0s.,  384  grains.    Ka  COa,  384  grains.    Hz  O.,  3  quarts. 

In  preparing  Fowler's  solution  on  a  large  scale  the  potassium  carbonate  may  bo  replaced  by  the  much 
cheaper  sal-soda.  As  recommended  by  Capt.  N.  D.  Cross,  of  Selma,  sal-soda  and  gray  arsenic  are  taken 
in  equal  proportions  by  weight;  the  soda  is  dissolved  in  a  little  boiling  water,  tho  arsenic  is  then  added, 
and,  when  dissolved,  water  is  added  in  such  quantity  as  to  make  one  gallon  of  the  solution  for  each 
ounce  of  arsenic  used.  He  recommends  the  use  of  1-1J  gallons  of  this  normal  solution  for  each  barrel 
of  water. 


EXPERIMENTS   WITH    WET    POISONS. 


225 


With  our  single  pump  we  were  able  to  cover  only  five  rows  of  cotton 
for  each  trip  across  the  field  and  do  it  well.  Including  the  time  spent 
in  filling  the  barrel  it  took  45  minutes  for  each  barrel  of  poison  put  out; 
or,  in  ten  hours,  three  hands  and  four  mules  would  poison  about  13 
acres. 

On  the  1st  of  September  a  light  rain  in  the  early  afternoon  became 
heavier  about  4  p.  in.  and  lasted  till  some  time  in  the  night,  a  few  driz- 
zling showers  having  fallen  the  day  before. 

When  these  poisons  were  applied  there  were  scarcely  any  worms  on 
the  cotton  poisoned,  but  many  eggs.  On  the  4th  of  September  I  noted 
that  these  had  hatched,  but  few  larvae  had  yet  eaten  through  the  leaves 
so  as  to  reach  such  poison  as  the  rains  had  left.  Of  the  few  worms  on 
the  cotton  before  the  rain  I  had  noticed  a  small  number  of  dead  ones, 
the  most  being  found  on  section  17,  the  next  on  15,  the  next  on  16,  but 
neither  18  nor  19  did  much  good.  Coming  as  they  did,  the  rains  re- 
moved the  greater  part  of  the  poison  before  the  young  worms  could  eat 
it,  so  that  little  good  was  done  by  this  poisoning. 

September  5,  some  cotton  badly  infested  with  newly-hatched  cater- 
pillars was  poisoned,  as  follows : 


• 

I 

1 

.1 

1 

Date. 

ITame  of  poison. 

SI 

fl 

-s's 

jl 

1 

11 

fl 

fj 

|S 

1 

0> 

0" 

r 

1 

•>fl 

Many 

1    21 

Do 

Sept.  5,  1879.. 

\    22 
]    23 

do  

24  ounces  . 
10  fl.  ozs  .. 



8  days  <^ 

Do. 

Few. 

I  °1 

20  fl  ozs 

I 

Do. 

In  all  we  poisoned  a  little  less  than  3  acres  this  time,  using  only  about 
half  a  barrel  on  section  22.  One  hand  worked  the  pump,  wetting  six 
rows  at  a  time;  another  followed  him  with  the  bucket  of  poison. 
Previously  I  had  caused  a  barrel  in  the  middle  of  the  field  to  be  filled 
with  water.  In  this  I  suspended  the  poison,  having  the  men  replenish 
it  as  often  as  necessary.  About  four  gallons  each  of  the  kerosene  and 
turpentine  mixtures  were  used. 

The  next  day,  when  I  examined  the  Paris-green  sections,  I  found  many 
worms  dead  on  each  of  them.  When  I  rubbed  the  leaves  with  my  hand, 
or  sprinkled  water  over  them,  I  could  not  see  but  that  one  adhered  as 
well  as  another.  Here  and  there  a  leaf  was  badly  scorched,  and  some  few 
forms  were  injured ;  but,  taken  as  a  whole  the  field  suffered  little.  Here 
I  noticed  what  was  also  seen  before  and  afterward,  namely,  that  a  leaf 
may  be  completely  covered  with  Paris-green  sediment  and  yet  show  no 
scorching ;  but  where  the  dead  spots  appear  on  the  leaves  there  may  be 
15  c  i 


226 


REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 


little  of  the  poison.  Paris-green  being  practically  insoluble  in  water, 
I  am  unable  to  account  for  this. 

On  the  8th  of  September  I  noted  that  the  cotton  on  which  Paris  green 
was  used  three  days  before  was  uninjured  by  the  worms,  though  a  few 
were  still  eating,  most  of  these  having  hatched  after  the  poison  was 
applied.  But  where  I  used  kerosene  or  oil  of  turpentine  the  cotton  was 
almost  leafless,  these  substances  having  injured  some  of  the  leaves,  and 
killed  a  considerable  number  of  larvae,  but  not  enough  to  save  the. crop. 

September  10,  a  number  of  gallons  of  water,  containing  from  a  half 
teaspoonful  to  a  teaspoonful  of  carbolic  acid  per  gallon,  were  applied 
with  the  fountain  pump.  This  water  was  stirred  so  that  the  acid  was 
suspended  through  it  as  very  small  globules.  It  was  found  to  kill  some 
caterpillars,  but  by  no  means  enough  to  save  the  cotton ;  and,  used  in 
these  proportions,  it  injured  the  cotton  considerably.  More  water,  con- 
taining kerosene  and  oil  of  turpentine  in  varying  quantities,  was  applied ; 
but,  like  the  last,  I  found  that  it  did  not  effectually  destroy  the  worms, 
even  when  strong  enough  to  seriously  injure  the  cotton. 

B. — DRY  POISON. 

Iii  the  afternoon  of  August  22,  I  poisoned  four  sections  with  dry 
poisons,  as  shown  in  the  annexed  table.  Where  flour  was  used  with 
either  rosin  or  dextrine,  or  both,  the  proportion  was  that  used  in  Royall's 
patent.  Where  gypsum  was  used,  it  replaced  the  flour,  bulk  for  bulk,  in 
this  series. 


1 

I 

.a 

to 

1, 

Itete. 

Name  of  poison. 

0 

i 

!l 

H 

i 

to 

r 

H 

1 

(Floor....) 

-t 

<  Dextrine    > 

Fair  ... 

(  Kosin  .  .  .  .  ) 

Aug.  22,  1879 

2 

(  Flour  .  .  .  .  ) 
<  Dextrine   > 

0  hours  .  .  • 

Good 

Do. 

3 
4 

London  purple  

(Rosin....  ) 
Flour  

Fair  ... 
Good... 

Do. 
Very  little. 

As  will  be  seen  from  examining  this  table,  a  rain  began  falling  before 
we  had  finished  applying  the  poisons.  This  rain  continued  to  fall  all 
night,  all  of  the  next  day,  and  part  of  the  succeeding  night.  Another 
heavy  rain  occurred  the  next  night.  On  the  26th,  I  found  that  the 
cotton  of  sections  1  and  3  was  scorched  considerably,  far  more  than 
either  2  or  4.  The  second  section  had  killed  the  most  worms.  I  could 
not  see  but  what  section  3  adhered  as  well  as  either  1  or  2,  and  all  were 
far  better  than  4. 

August  26,  four  additional  sections  were  poisoned ;  the  only  variation 


EXPERIMENTS    WITH    DRY    POISONS. 


227 


from  Koyall's  mixture  being  in  omitting  some  ingredient,  substituting 
gypsum,  bulk  for  bulk,  for  flour,  or  varying  the  quantity  of  poison. 


1 

S 

|J 

£ 

.a 

2  3 

Date. 

Name  of  poison. 

£| 

*» 

al 

is 

| 

!* 

U 

IS 

•si 

II 

i 

1 

ft 

r 

B 

§ 

5 

(  Flour  ) 

5 

Arsenic 

\  Dextrine    > 

12.  5  pounds 

Much. 

(  Rosin.  ...S 

I  Flour  ) 

Aug.  26,  1879 

6 

Paris  green  

Z  Dextrine.  > 
(Rosin....) 

9.  0  pounds  . 

•120  hours  - 

...do  .... 

Do. 

(  Plaster  .  .  ) 

7 

London  purple  

<  Dextrine.  > 

12.  5  pounds. 

...do  ... 

Little. 

{Rosin....) 

8 

Paris  green  

Flour  

9.0  pounds. 

...do.... 

Much, 

When  these  poisons  were  applied  in  the  afternoon,  the  sun  was  shining 
brightly.  The  mixture  with  plaster  was  scattered  more  easily  than 
those  with  flour,  and  distributed  itself  very  evenly  over  the  leaves.  On 
the  31st  of  August  a  few  drizzling  showers  fell,  and  there  were  more 
on  the  next  day,  scarcely  any  falling  during  the  succeeding  night,  and 
a  very  little  the  following  morning.  August  28,  after  two  clear  days 
and  dewy  nights,  I  found  all  of  these  poisons  adhering  well;  though  the 
flour,  by  forming  a  sort  of  paste,  had  collected  into  blotches,  while  the 
plaster  remained  as  evenly  distributed  over  the  leaf  as  ever.  On  the 
2d  of  September,  I  noted  that  the  cotton  of  section  5  was  somewhat 
scorched.  Section  6  was  scorched  very  little.  Though  section  7  was  in 
great  part  removed,  it  had  scorched  the  cotton  considerably ;  more  than 
either  of  the  other  sections.  Very  few  leaves  were  injured  on  section  8. 
This  same  day,  I  found  that  a  very  little  of  section  1  still  adhered,  and 
the  cotton  was  little  injured.  A  little  was  also  found  on  section  2,  where 
the  cotton  was  very  little  hurt.  Section  3  seemed  to  adhere  as  well  as 
the  preceding,  but  had  scorched  the  cotton  more.  Section  4  had  scorched 
the  cotton  little,  but  no  traces  of  the  poison  were  left. 

September  2,  two  other  sections  were  poisoned,  using  one  part  of  flour 
by  weight  to  two  parts  of  gypsum  in  place  of  an  equal  bulk  of  flour  in 
Eoyall's  patent. 


1 

h 

1 

.3 

be 
1 

E 

al 

*"  9 

a  £ 

£a 

Date. 

Name  of  poison. 

|| 

21 

* 

i| 

1 

1 

n 

"tt  o 

*>  § 

|{ 

1 

1 

^1 

r 

i 

O* 

{Flour  I 

Sept.    2,1879 

9 

Paris  green  

Gvpsum  .  1 
Dextrine.  ( 
Eosin....J 

18  pounds*  .  . 

-  11  days..  - 

Good.... 



(  Flour  ) 

10 

London  purple  

<  Dextrine.  > 

9  pounds... 

...do.... 



j;      . 

(Rosin....) 

*  By  a  mistake  the  quantities  of  rosin,  dextrine,  and  Paris  green  were  intended  for  twice  the  bulk  of 
flour  and  plaster  used. 


228 


REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 


At  the  time  these  poisons  were  applied  this  cotton  was  beginning  to 
be  honeycombed  by  the  caterpillars;  but  none  large  enough  to  eat 
through  the  leaves  were  to  be  found  on  the  adjoining  sections  5,  6,  7, 
and  8.  Between  8  and  9  a  small  section  was  left  unpoisoned,  and  this 
was  defoliated  within  the  next  five  days,  while  all  of  these  sections  re- 
tained their  foliage  up  to  the  time  when  I  left  the  field,  September  15. 

September  4,  I  noted  that  the  cotton  on  section  10  was  badly  scorched, 
though  the  worms  were  killed  on  it.  The  poison  was  as  thickly  applied 
on  9  as  on  10,  yet,  despite  the  double  quantity  of  poison  used,  it  was  in- 
jured very  little.  The  caterpillars  were  killed.  Very  little  poison  re- 
mained on  sections  1,  2,  and  3,  of  August  22,  yet  in  a  very  few  places 
there  was  enough  to  kill  the  worms  that  were  then  appearing  in  large 
numbers  on  it.  None  remained  on  section  4,  the  foliage  of  which  was, 
for  the  most  part,  eaten  up. 

September  7,  the  poison  was  found  adhering  finely  to  sections  5  and 
6,  and  the  cotton  was  not  at  all  badly  scorched.  There  were  very  few 
worms  on  it.  No  traces  of  the  poison  on  section  7  could  be  found,  but 
there  were  no  worms  on  it,  and  it  was  not  materially  injured  by  scorch- 
ing. Not  very  much  remained  on  section  8,  but  there  were  few  cater- 
pillars to  be  found.  The  cotton  was  uninjured.  The  poison  adhered  in 
quantity  to  9  and  10,  where  the  worms  were  all  dead.  Section  9  was 
slightly  scorched,  section  10  badly.  The  unpoisoned  section  before 
mentioned  was  covered  with  caterpillars,  its  foliage  being  entirely  gone. 

September  9,  about  midday,  when  the  sun  was  shining  brightly,  I  ap- 
plied poisons  to  three  sections  to  test  the  resistance  of  different  sub- 
stances to  the  action  of  the  weather.  The  quantity  and  quality  of  the 
poison  being  unimportant,  I  shall  give  only  the  proportions  of  the  sub- 
stances used  to  dilute  it. 


3 

g 

I 

M 

| 

i 

1 

4 

«j 

|.s 

Date. 

"3 

*S 

% 

1 

^^ 

1 

Of 

9 

1 

ft 

li 

$ 

£ 

t 

k' 

£ 

J 

<§ 

Sept.    9,1879 

J8 

(   13 

4  ounces  .  .  . 
0  ounces  — 
2  ounces  .  .  . 

24  ounces  .  .  . 
24  ounces  .  .  . 
24  ounces  .  .  . 

1  ounce  
1  ounce  

1  ounce  
i  ounce  

{4days  j 
5                       * 

Somo. 
Do. 
Much. 

September  14, 1  noted  that  my  sections  up  to  No.  11  were  about  as 
before  the  rain.  Of  11',  12,  and  13,  all  were  more  or  less  removed,  and 
strangely  enough  the  last,  containing  the  smallest  quantity  of  flour, 
had  resisted  the  rain  better  than  either  of  the  others.  None  of  these 
stood  it  as  well  as  most  of  the  earlier  sections  which  had  already  been 
exposed  to  numerous  rains.  Owing  to  my  departure  from  the  field  at 
this  time  these  later  experiments  are  exceedingly  unsatisfactory,  and  I 
hesitate  to  base  a  very  pronounced  opinion  on  them,  but  think  that  they 
go  to  demonstrate  that  plaster,  unless  accompanied  by  a  large  quantity 


MACHINES    FOR    DISTRIBUTING   POISONS.  229 

of  flour,  will  not -do  to  apply  poisons  with  unless  it  is  absolutely  certain 
that  no  rain  will  fall  till  they  shall  have  time  to  kill  the  caterpillars  they 
are  intended  to  destroy. 

In  applying  poisons  it  is  desirable,  if  possible,  to  employ  machines  by 
which  they  may  be  more  rapidly  distributed.  For,  as  the  time  when 
poisoning  must  be  done,  all  of  the  regular  plantation-hands  ought  to  be 
engaged  in  saving  fodder  or  picking  cotton,  day-hands  are  doing  this 
work  for  themselves,  and,  aside  from  the  mere  question  of  cost,  it  is 
often  impossible  to  get  over  a  plantation  in  time  to  meet  the  worms  on 
their  emergence  from  the  egg  without  exposing  some  of  the  poison  to 
the  danger  of  being  removed  by  rain.  This  is  especially  true  of  dry 
poisons,  for  if  applied  by  hand  they  require  far  more  time  per  acre  than 
liquids  do.  Moreover,  on  their  emergence  from  the  egg  the  larvae  do 
not  eat  entirely  through  the  leaf,  but  spend  from  two  to  four  days  on 
the  lower  surface ;  therefore,  as  suggested  to  me  by  Professor  Comstock, 
it  is  desirable  to  apply  the  poisons  to  the  lower  surface  of  the  leaf,  so 
that  they  may  be  killed  without  so  long  au  exposure  of  the  poison  to 
chances  of  being  removed  by  rain.  Since  the  moths  feed  on  the  nectar 
secreted  by  the  glands  on  the  lower  surface  of  the  leaf,  it  may  also  be 
possible  to  apply  some  soluble  poison  to  this  surface,  some  of  which 
being  absorbed  by  the  nectar  will  poison  the  moths. 

Aside  from  these  reasons,  I  do  not  see  why  any  machines  should  apply 
liquid  poisons  better  or  more  expeditiously  than  can  be  doue  by  the 
fountain  pumps.  A  machine  which  fills  these  requirements  is  that  in- 
vented by  William  T.  Daughtrey,  of  Selma,  which  throws  a  finely  divided 
spray  up  through  the  leaves ;  this  in  its  descent  wetting  the  upper  sur- 
face. In  its  present  form  this  machine  is  intended  to  be  drawn  by  two 
mules,  poisoning  four  rows  of  cotton;  but  it  is  entirely  impracticable  to 
use  it  as  now  made.  Mr.  Daughtrey,  however,  soon  expects  to  have  a 
lighter  and  more  manageable  machine,  drawn  by  one  mule  and  poison- 
ing as  many  rows  as  the  machine  he  now  has.  Having  seen  his  jet  I 
see  nothing  further  to  be  desired  in  that  line,  and  when  combined  with 
a  properly  constructed  body  it  seems  likely  to  meet  every  want.  I  have, 
though,  grave  doubts  as  to  any  machines  proving  superior  to  the  foun- 
tain pump,  when  everything  is  taken  into  consideration. 

The  slowness  and  expense  of  applying  dry  poisons,  on  the  other  hand, 
make  it  desirable  to  employ  some  machine  if  possible.  Such  machines 
have  been  devised  and  patented ;  but,  as  I  saw  none  of  them  in  opera- 
tion, it  is  unecessary  for  me  to  speak  of  them. 

With  some  machine  doing  away  with  the  greater  part  of  the  labor 
otherwise  required,  I  think  that,  in  spite  of  its  greater  original  cost, 
the  dry  form  of  poison  is  far  preferable  to  the  wet,  on  account  of  its 
greater  adhesiveness. 

Starting  on  a  certain  part  of  every  plantation,  as  they  do,  the  cater- 
pillars may  be  watched  as  they  increase  in  numbers.  My  advice  would 
be  that  as  soon  as  they  appear  in  any  numbers  in  such  places — probably 


230  REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

the  first  crop  or  third  brood — these  places,  of  a  few  acres  in  extent, 
should  be  thoroughly  poisoned.  The  next  brood  radiating  from  these 
centers  may  be  in  great  part  destroyed  by  poisoning  a  slightly  greater 
area  5  and  the  third  crop  will  thus  be  greatly  diminished,  and  may  itself 
be  'destroyed  by  poisoning  generally  over  the  plantation,  the  signal  for 
poisoning  being  the  abundance  of  eggs,  some  of  which  are  beginning 
to  hatch.  Could  such  a  system  be  followed  by  every  person  raising 
cotton,  I  feel  certain  that  it  would  be  very  few  years  before  the  cotton 
caterpillar  would  cease  to  be  the  pest  that  it  now  is. 

[End  of  Mr.  Trelease's  report.] 
PREVENTIVE   MEASURES. 

The  most  important  of  the  preventive  measures  which  can  be  adopted 
is  the  encouragement  of  the  natural  enemies  of  the  cotton-worm.  De- 
tailed accounts  of  these  have  been  given  in  a  previous  chapter;  hence, 
but  little  remains  to  be  said  here. 

The  most  practicable  thing  which  can  be  done  in  this  direction  is  the 
protection  by  law  of  all  the  native  insectivorous  birds.  An  incalculable 
amount  of  injury  has  been  done  by  the  indiscriminate  destruction  of  birds 
by  the  freedmen  since  the  close  of  the  war.  In  addition  to  the  protec- 
tion of  the  native  species,  others  might  be  introduced.  But  here  very 
great  care  must  be  exercised,  else  more  harm  than  good  may  be  accom- 
plished. No  species  should  be  introduced  the  habits  of  which  are  not  thor- 
oughly understood.  We  wish  to  call  particular  attention  to  this  point,  as 
many  planters  have  urged  us  to  aid  in  the  introduction  into  the  cotton 
States  of  the  English  sparrow,  a  species  the  importation  of  which  into 
the  Northern  States  has  been  pronounced  a  calamity  by  nearly  all  of  the 
American  ornithologists. 

The  encouragement  of  the  insect  enemies  of  the  cotton- worm,  though 
less  practicable  than  the  protection  of  birds,  is  not  less  important;  for  this 
reason,  great  care  has  been  taken  to  figure  and  describe  all  the  predaceous 
or  parasitic  insects  which  destroy  the  cotton-worm.  It  would  be  worth 
the  while  of  every  planter  to  become  familiar  with  the  appearance  of 
the  more  common  of  these,  and  instruct  his  hands  not  to  injure  them.  In 
those  cases  in  which  hand-picking  of  the  pupae  of  Aletia  is  employed, 
much  good  can  be  done  by  taking  care  not  to  destroy  the  parasites  con- 
tained in  them.  The  pupae,  when  collected,  instead  of  being  destroyed 
should  be  placed  in  barrels  or  boxes  covered  with  coarse  wire  gauze  or 
other  netting.  In  this  way  the  parasites  which  emerge  from  the  pupae 
can  be  allowed  to  escape  through  the  raesbes  of  the  netting,  and  are  thus 
enabled  to  go  on  with  their  destruction  of  the.  pest ;  whereas,  the  moths 
which  mature,  being  larger,  cannot  escape,  and  perish  in  their  prison. 
Some  idea  of  the  importance  of  this  precaution  may  be  gathered  from 
the  results  of  an  experiment  already  cited,  in  which  it  was  found  that  of 
1,721  pupae  of  the  fourth  brood,  nearly  ten  per  cent,  were  parasitized. 
Or  what  is  more  to  our  purpose,  there  were  bred  from  these  pupae  44 
large  parasites  (Pimpla,  Chalcis,  and  Tachina),  and  an  immense  number  of 


COLLECTING  LARVAE  BY  HAND.  231 

small  parasitic  flies  belonging  to  the  genus  Phora.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered that  the  later  broods  of  Aletia  contain  a  larger  percentage  of  para- 
sitized individuals. 

Under  this  head  will  come  also  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Nicholas  A. 
Davis,  of  Jacksonville,  Tex.,  who  recommends  not  plowing  the  cotton 
fields  while  they  are  yet  wet,  and  also  advises  planters  not  to  plant  cot- 
ton on  wet  land  where  ants  do  not  live. 

As  another  preventive  measure,  would  it  not  be  well  to  plant  less  cot- 
ton and  cultivate  more  thoroughly,  using  fertilizers?  In  this  way  more 
cotton  would  be  made  early  in  the  season,  before  the  worms  increase  suffi- 
ciently to  injure  it,  and  then,  with  smaller  fields  to  go  over,  the  force 
upon  a  plantation  would  be  sufficient  to  apply  remedies  in  season  to 
keep  the  worms  in  check. 

DESTRUCTION  OF  EGGS. 

Many  attempts  have  been  made  to  destroy  the  cotton- worm  in  the 
egg  state.  These  have  been  accompanied  with  but  little  success.  Ow- 
ing to  the  fact  that  the  tender  terminal  leaves  are  first  destroyed  by  the 
worms,  planters  have  believed  the  eggs  were  laid  upon  this  part  of  the 
plant.  This  belief  has  suggested  the  idea  that  by  cutting  off  and  de- 
stroying the  terminal  shoots  the  eggs  would  be  removed.  But  as  shown 
in  the  chapter  in  natural  history,  the  greater  part  of  the  eggs  is  laid  on 
the  lower  surface  of  the  larger  leaves  of  the  middle  third  of  the  plant ; 
hence  by  topping  the  cotton  only  those  worms  which  happen  to  be  on 
that  part  of  the  plant  would  be  destroyed. 

Owing  to  their  small  size,  and  the  position  in  which  the  eggs  are  de- 
posited, any  attempt  to  destroy  the  insect  in  this  state  will  prove  imprac- 
ticable. And  the  destruction  of  the  few  larvae  which  are  removed  with 
the  terminal  shoots,  does  not  pay  for  the  labor  of  topping  the  cotton, 
especially  as  the  entire  cotton  can  be  poisoned  with  less  labor. 

COLLECTING  LARVAE  BY  HAND. 

Although  it  may  seem 'a  hopeless  task  to  preserve  a  field  of  cotton  by 
collecting  the  larvae  by  hand,  we  feel  that  very  much  can  be  done  in 
this  way  if  the  effort'is  made  at  the  proper  season.  It  would  be  a  waste 
of  labor  to  attempt  to  destroy  in  this  way  the  individuals  of  the  third 
crop  of  worms.  Xot  so,  however,  in  case  of  the  first  brood.  This  ap- 
pears in  such  small  numbers  that  by  careful  searching  a  very  large  pro- 
portion of  them  could  be  found.  This,  ot  course,  would  materially  lessen 
the  numbers  of  the  subsequent  broods.  As  early  as  the  middle  of  May 
the  cotton  fields  should  be  thoroughly  searched;  at  this  time  the  cotton 
plants  are  small,  therefore,  this  could  be  done  with  comparatively  little 
labor.  Much  could  be  accomplished  by  instructing  the  hands  to  care- 
fully collect  all  larvae  and  folded  leaves  containing  pupae  found  while 
working  the  cotton  early  in  the  season.  We  believe,  however,  that  in- 


232  EEPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

structions  of  this  kind  could  only  be  made  to  produce  the  maximum 
results  by  offering  a  reward  for  every  specimen  captured  before  a  certain 
date,  say  Jane  1 ;  a  smaller  reward  might  then  be  offered  for  each  spec- 
imen between  that  time  and  some  subsequent  date.  We  have  no  doubt 
that  were  each  planter  to  expend  a  small  sum  in  this  way  greater  returns 
would  be  realized  than  could  be  obtained  by  the  expenditure  upon  the 
crop  of  a  like  sum  any  other  way.  And  we  are  inclined  to  believe  that 
even  in  case  where  concerted  action  cannot  be  obtained  good  results 
will  follow  individual  efforts.  For,  although  the  summer  and  autumn 
broods  of  moths  migrate  to  great  distances,  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  the  hibernating  individuals  and  those  of  the  early  broods  do  not  do 
so  to  any  great  extent.  As  evidence  of  this  we  cite  the  fact  that  con- 
siderable time  elapses  between  the  appearance  of  the  worms  in  those 
localities  which  we  have  designated  as  centers  of  hibernation  and  in  the 
more  northern  parts  of  the  cotton  belt. 

DESTRUCTION  OP  LARVAE  BY  POISONS. 

Arsenic  and  its  compounds. — The  only  remedies  which  are  now  used  to 
any  great  extent  are  poisons  applied  to  the  plant  for  the  destruction  of 
the  larvae,  and,  almost  without  exception,  these  poisons  are  either 
arsenic  or  some  compound  of  that  mineral.  The  compounds  of  arsenic 
used  to  the  greatest  extent  are  Paris-green,  Texas  Cotton- Worm 
Destroyer,  and,  during  the  present  season,  London  purple. 

Very  great  difference  of  opinion  exists  among  planters  with  regard  to 
the  relative  value  of  these  substances.  This  difference  of  opinion  is  not 
only  as  to  their  relative  efficacy  as  insecticides,  but  also  as  to  their  effect 
upon  the  plants.  Thus,  although  Paris  green  costs  from  six  to  ten  times 
as  much  as  white  arsenic,  many  planters  prefer  to  use  the  former  simply 
because  there  is  less  danger  of  injuring  the  cotton  plants.  With  a 
view  to  settling  these  points,  I  planned  the  experiments  conducted  by 
Mr.  Trelease,  a  report  of  which  has  just  been  given,  and  on  going  over 
carefully  the  testimony  of  planters  which  I  collected  while  in  the  field 
last  year,  and  the  answers  of  our  correspondents,  which  are  given  in 
Appendix  II  (answers  to  question  7 «),  I  find  tiiat  the  experience  of  the 
majority  confirms  the  results  of  these  experiments  in  indicating  that 
Paris  green  is  the  most  desirable  insecticide.  It  seems  to  act  more 
speedily  than  the  other  poisons,  and  if  used  carefully,  no  appreciable 
injury  will  result  to  the  plants;  whereas,  with  arsenic  and  the  other 
compounds  of  this  mineral  with  which  we  experimented,  it  is  difficult  to 
apply  a  sufficient  quantity  to  effectually  destroy  the  worms  without  in- 
juring the  plants.  We  feel  sure  that  the  unfavorable  results  which  have 
followed  in  some  instances  from  the  use  of  Paris  green  have  arisen  from 
one  of  the  following  causes,  either  an  excessive  use  of  the  substance  or 
the  use  of  an  adulterated  article,  chiefly  the  latter.  From  the  trials 
which  we  have  made,  we  are  inclined  to  doubt  that  there  is  any  danger 
of  scorching  the  cotton  if  pure  Paris  green  be  used  in  the  usual  way, 


LONDON   PURPLE.  233 

whereas  we  have  no  doubt  that  very  serious  consequences  have  followed 
the  use  of  an  adulterated  article. 

We  have  endeavored  to  find  some  simple  method  by  which  any  planter 
could  test  for  himself  the  purity  of  Paris-green.  The  following,  although 
it  does  not  meet  all  requirements,  will  be  found  useful.  Pure  Paris 
green  is  soluble  in  ammonia;  hence,  if  you  take  100  grains  of  Paris 
green  and  place  it  in  a  glass  vessel  and  add  one  ounce  of  liquid  ammonia 
(it  may  require  more  than  one  ounce  if  the  ammonia  be  not  strong), 
and  stir  it  for  a  minute  or  two  with  a  glass  or  wooden  rod,  the  Paris 
green  will  completly  dissolve,  forming  a  beautiful  blue  transparent  solu- 
tion. Should  there  be  sediment  it  will  indicate  that  the  Paris  green  is 
adulterated ;  and  the  amount  of  sediment  will  show  the  amount  of  adul- 
teration. This  test  will  serve  to  detect  the  presence  of  any  of  the 
substances  ordinarily  used  for  adulteration  of  this  poison.  Sometimes, 
however,  white  arsenic  is  used  for  this  purpose,  and  as  this  substance  is 
also  soluble  in  ammonia  its  presence  cannot  be  detected  in  this  way. 
By  using  the  above  test,  however,  the  planter  can  be  certain  that  the 
compound  in  question  will  be  efficient  as  an  insecticide.  There  remains 
only  the  danger  of  his  cotton  being  injured  by  the  caustic  action  of 
adulterating  arsenic.  The  best  plan  is  to  buy  the  poison  directly  of  the 
manufacturer.  In  this  case,  if  care  is  taken  to  deal  only  with  reliable 
firms,  little  danger  need  be  apprehended. 

It  is  proper  to  state  that  although  our  experiments  with  the  Texas 
Cotton-Worm  Destroyer  as  well  as  those  conducted  by  some  of  our  cor- 
respondents in  Alabama  failed  to  produce  satisfactory  results ;  many 
strong  recommendations  of  this  remedy  have  been  received  from  west- 
ern portions  of  the  cotton  belt,  especially  Texas ;  and  in  the  circular 
published  by  Preston  and  Robira  are  recommendations  from  many 
prominent  planters.  An  analysis  shows  that  this  remedy  is  an  arseni- 
ate  of  sodium,  which  is  almost  entirely  soluble  in  water.  Of  course  its 
value  as  an  insecticide  is  due  to  the  arsenic  which  it  contains ;  its  only 
advantage  over  other  compounds  of  arsenic  is  its  solubility  in  water, 
and  we  are  inclined  to  believe  that  this  advantage  is  more  than  counter- 
balanced by  the  fact  that  there  is  greater  danger  of  injury  to  the  plant 
from  a  solution  of  this  kind  than  by  a  mere  mechanical  mixture  with 
water.  This  point  is  illustrated  by  an  experiment  tried  with  Fowler's 
solution. 

As  to  the  results  of  the  experiments  with  London  purple,  we  are  dis- 
appointed. We  had  hoped,  owing  to  the  cheapness  with  which  it  can 
be  furnished,  that  it  would  prove  a  substitute  for  Paris  green,  but  our 
experience  indicates  that  it  is  even  less  desirable  than  commercial  arse- 
nic. We  hesitate,  however,  to  give  a  decided  opinion  with  only  the  re- 
sults of  a  single  season's  trial  before  us,  especially  as  we  have  favorable 
reports  from  Prof.  C.  C.  Bessey,  of  the  Iowa  State  Agricultural  College, 
who  has  experimented  with  it  as  a  remedy  for  the  potato  beetle,  and 
from  Mr.  A.  K.  Whitney,  of  Franklin  Grove,  111.,  who  has  successfully 


234  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

employed  it  against  the  canker-worm  on  fruit  trees,  and  prefers  it  to 
either  Paris  green  or  arsenic  for  that  purpose.  Still,  it  should  be  re- 
membered that  the  foliage  of  cotton  being  tender,  is  scorched  much 
more  easily  than  that  of  some  other  plants,  and  also,  that  a  substance 
may  kill  certain  insects  quickly  while  it  acts  much  more  slowly  upon 
others.  London  purple  consists  chiefly  of  arseuiate  of  lime,  together 
with  considerable  aniline  purple,  and  a  little  imparity.  As  it  is  a  waste 
product  in  the  manufacture  of  various  salts  of  rose  aniline,  its  compo- 
sition is  not  constant.  A  sample  which  was  analyzed  by  Dr.  Collier 
shows  the  following  composition  : 

Per  cent. 

Rose  aniline -. 12.46 

Arsenic  acid 43. 65 

Lime 21.82 

Insoluble  residue 14. 57 

Iron  oxide 1. 16 

Water 2.27 

Loss  ...  4.07 


100. 00 

A  compound  of  arsenious  acid  and  cyanide  of  potassium  has  been 
used  to  a  considerable  extent  in  Texas.  It  is  known  as  Johnson's  Dead 
Shot.  It  was  patented  June  2,  18J74.  The  following  extract  from  the 
specifications  describes  the  compound : 

In  order  to  form  my  compound  I  use  the  following  ingredients,  and  preferably  in 
the  following  proportions,  to  wit :  Eight  ounces  of  arsenious  acid,  one  ounce  of  cyanide 
of  potassium,  and  eight  ounces  of  dextrine,  dissolved  in  forty  gallons  of  water. 

Arsenious  acid,  when  applied  to  the  leaves  of  cotton  or  other  plants  in  the  form  of 
spray,  will  remain  free  from  evaporation  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time  to  be  eaten  by 
such  insects  as  feed  upon  cotton  or  other  plants.  Cyanide  of  potassium,  when  applied 
in  like  manner  as  a  component  part,  might  be  termed  the  base  of  said  compound,  and 
serves  to  hold  the  arsenious  acid  in  solution  before  it  is  conveyed  to  the  plant,  and, 
being  among  the  most  deadly  of  all  insect  poisons,  it'  not  only  kills  when  eaten,  but 
is  death  to  insects  the  instant  it  strikes  them,  and  so  impregnates  the  air  immediately 
around  the  plant  upon  which  it  has  been  deposited  that  the  fly  or  miller  which  creates 
the  cotton-worm  is  instantly  killed  on  coming  in  contact  with,  or  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  of,  the  same ;  and,  being  a  powerful  alkali,  is  easily  absorbed  by  vegetation, 
and  acts  as  a  touic  or  fertilizer,  thus  entirely  neutralizing  the  evil  or  damaging  effects 
of  the  arsenious  ingredient  upon  both  land  and  plant.  Dextrine,  one  of  the  component 
parts  of  my  compound,  has  no  poisonous  effect,  but  is  simply  used  to  produce  a  thin 
mucilage  of  my  other  ingredients,  sufficient  to  hold  the  said  compound  on  the  plant 
to  which  it  may  be  administered. 

No  experiments  were  tried  with  this  compound.  We  have  no  doubt, 
however,  that  it  is  effectual  as  an  insecticide;  but  we  would  hesitate. to 
recommend  the  use  of  a  volatile  poison  so  deadly  as  cyanide  of  potas- 
sium. 

Objections  to  the  use  of  arsenic  and  its  compounds. — Much  has  been  writ- 
ten respecting  the  dangers  attending  the  use  of  arsenical  poisons  as  in- 
secticides. We  do  not  here  refer  to  the  caustic  action  of  the  poison 
upon  the  leaves  of  the  plant,  but  to  the  injuries  which  may  result  to  man 


OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    USE    OF   ARSENIC.  235 

from  the  incautious  handling  of  so  deadly  a  poison;  to  animals  by  drink- 
ing water  from  vessels  in  which  it  has  been  mixed,  and  by  drinking 
from  streams  flowing  through  cotton-fields  thus  treated,  and  espec- 
ially to  the  danger  of  the  poison  accumulating  in  the  soil  to  such  an  ex- 
tent as  to  exert  an  injurious  influence  on  the  plant.  When  we  consider 
the  immense  quantity  of  this  poison  which  has  been  used  during  the 
last  few  years,  and  the  low  grade  of  intelligence  of  the  majority  of  the 
field-hands  who  have  been  required  to  apply  it,  especially  in  the  cotton 
States,  it  seems  as  if  a  great  risk  of  loss  of  life  had  been  incurred ;  statis- 
tics, however,  fail  to  confirm  such  conclusions.  We  occasionally  read  in 
the  newspapers  accounts  of  serious  results  following  the  use  of  poisons  as 
insecticides,  but  no  well  authenticated  case  has  come  to  our  notice.  Al- 
though, doubtless,  there  is  danger  with  the  usual  care,  the  risk  is  not 
greater  than  that  of  railway  or  steamship  travel  or. many  other  practices 
which  are  necessary. 

These  remarks  will  apply  also  to  the  dangers  accruing  to  animals  from 
this  use  of  poison.  For,  although  we  are  informed  that  the  annual  loss 
by  Paris  green  of  cows,  sheep,  and  horses  is  something  considerable,  no 
instance  has  come  under  our  personal  observation. 

As  to  the  accumulation  of  the  arsenic  in  the  soil,  in  sufficient  quantity 
to  prove  injurious  to  plants,  we  cannot  do  better  than  to  cite  the  inves- 
tigations of  Dr.  William  McMurtrie.*  These  investigations  show: 

That,  though  arsenical  compounds  exert  an  injurious  influence  upon  vegetation,  yet 
this  is  without  effect  until  the  quantity  present  reaches,  for  Paris  green,  about  900 
pounds  per  acre  ;  for  arsenite  of  potassa,  about  400  pounds  per  acre. 

Thus,  if  all  the  arsenic  were  to  remain  in  the  soil  no  injurious  effects 
need  be  expected  to  follow  within  one  hundred  years.  And  when  we 
take  into  consideration  the  amount  of  arsenic  which  is  removed  from  the 
soil  by  drainage,  an  even  greater  time  may  be  expected  to  elapse  before 
that  event  occurs.  And  we  may  reasonably  expect  that  ere  that  time 
the  science  of  economic  entomology  will  be  so  far  advanced  that  a  harm- 
less substitute  for  arsenic  will  be  known  if  there  remains  an  occasion  for 
its  use  against  this  enemy  of  the  cotton  plant. 

Carbolic  acid. — Experiments  conducted  by  Professor  Willet  and  my- 
self last  season  with  carbolic  acid  gave  results  similar  to  those  obtained 
by  Mr.  Trelease.  It  was  found  in  each  case  that  where  this  substance 
was  used  in  sufficient  quantities  to  destroy  the  worms  it  injured  the  cot- 
ton plants  greatly. 

Kerosene. — Although  the  different  forms  of  coal-oil  have  been  found 
to  be  very  valuable  in  many  instances  as  insecticides,  all  of  our  efforts 
to  employ  it  against  the  cotton-worm  have  produced  poor  results.  In 
every  case  when  a  mixture  of  kerosene  and  water  of  sufficient  strength 
to  destroy  the  worms  has  been  applied  to  cotton,  the  plants  have  been 
injured. 

The  following  experiment,  suggested  by  the  use  made  of  kerosene 
"Annual  Report  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  1875,  pp.  144-147. 


256  EEPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

against  the  Eocky  Mountain  locust,  was  tried :  A  quantity  of  kerosene 
was  put  into  a  pan;  all  that  would  flow  was  then  poured  out,  leaving 
only  a  thin  film  over  the  bottom  of  the  pan.  A  dozen  cotton- worms  were 
then  put  into  the  pan.  At  the  end  of  two  minutes  all  were  dead.  But 
the  danger  of  injury  to  the  cotton-plant,  and  especially  of  knocking  off 
the  bolls  by  any  machine  employed  for  jarring  the  worms  from  the  plants 
into  receptacles  containing  coal-oil,  will  prevent  the  use  of  this  substance 
in  this  way. 

Pyrethrum. — The  value  as  an  insecticide  of  powder  made  from  the  dried 
flo wer-heads  of  different species  of  Pyrethrum,  and  sold  under  the  name  of 
Persian  Insect  Powder,  has  long  been  known,  but  its  expense  has  pre- 
vented its  general  use  except  for  insects  infesting  houses  and  parasites 
upon  domestic  animals.  For  the  same  reason,  we  neglected  to  experiment 
with  it  on  the  cotton-worms,  believing  that,  however  efficient  it  might 
be,  its  cost  would  prevent  its  use  against  insects  infesting  field  crops. 
But  there  has  been  introduced  into  California  a  Dalmatian  species  of 
Pyrethrum  (Pyrethrum  cineraricefolium,)  from  which  a  powder  equally 
as  good  as  the  imported  powder  is  made.  And  we  have  recently  learned, 
what  is  equally  important,  that  this  powder  can  be  produced  at  a  price 
which  will  admit  of  its  being  used  on  field  crops.  The  Californian  pow 
der  is  known  as  buhach. 

The  most  important  peculiarity  of  powder  made  from  Pyretlirum  is 
that,  although  deadly  to  insects,  it  is  harmless  to  man  and  domestic 
animals.  The  neglect  to  experiment  with  this  powder  upon  the  cotton- 
worms  this  season  is  not  a  serious  matter,  as  it  is  not  yet  produced  in 
this  country  in  sufficient  quantities  to  admit  of  its  taking  the  place  of 
remedies  we  now  have.  We  understand  that  arrangements  have  been 
made  for  growing  the  plants  upon  a  large  scale,  and  before  the  sub- 
stance can  be  put  upon  the  market  in  large  quantities  the  necessary 
experiments  to  determine  its  efficiency  and  the  best  mode  of  application 
will  have  been  made.* 

MODES   OF   APPLYING  POISONS. 

Second  in  importance  only  to  the  choosing  of  the  most  effectual  poison 
is  the  adoption  of  the  best  mode  of  applying  the  remedy.  Although 
many  methods  have  been  adopted,  they  may  be  classified  under  two  gen- 
eral heads:  First,  use  of  poisons  diluted  with  water;  second,  use  of 
poisons  diluted  with  some  dry  substance. 

Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  these  methods,  I  wish 'to  urge 
the  importance  of  making  early  preparations  for  poisoning.  As  yet  most 
planters  do  not  seem  to  realize  that  fighting  the  worms  is  a  part  of  the 
necessary  labor  for  raising  a  crop  of  cotton.  As  a  rule  no  provision  is 
made  for  this  work  in  the  way  of  purchase  of  poison  or  implements  for 
ics  distribution,  or  conveniencies  for  getting  water,  until  the  worms  are 

*The  Pyrethrum  cineraricpfolium  was  introduced  into  California  and  is  raised  by  Mr. 
G.  N.  Milco,  of  Stockton,  CaL 


PREPARATIONS    FOR   POISONING.  237 

injuring  the  crop  so  badly  that  it  is  evident  that  something  must  be  done 
at  once  to  save  it.  The  result  is  that  while  the  planter  is  engaged  in  the 
preliminary  work  which  should  have  been  done  months  before,  the  crop 
is  destroyed. 

The  following  remark  was  made  to  me  in  almost  the  same  words  by 
the  majority  of  the  planters  with  whom  I  talked  upon  the  subject :  "  The 
trouble  about  poisoning  is,  a  man  may  have  a  large  field,  the  worms  ap- 
pear in  it,  and  in  three  or  four  days  the  crop  is  destroyed  before  the 
poison  can  be  applied."  Another  expression  which  I  often  heard,  and 
which  is  equally  suggestive  of  a  lack  of  appreciation  of  the  proper  way 
in  which  to  contend  against  this  insect,  is  the  following :  "The  first  and 
second  crops  of  worms  do  no  harm;  it  is  not  worth  while  to  poison  them  ; 
it  is  the  third  crop  that  does  the  injury." 

The  cotton- worm  will  continue  to  be  a  scourge  until  all  who  raise  cot- 
ton, except  perhaps  those  in  the  northern  portions  of  the  cotton  belt, 
incorporate  in  their  estimate  of  the  cost  of  producing  a  crop  the  expense 
of  poisoning  the  worms.  The  fact  that  in  almost  every  section  there 
are  seasons  during  which  the  worms  injure  the  cotton  but  little  can  al- 
most be  considered  a  misfortune;  for  it  is  doubtless  largely  owing  to 
this  that  proper  preparations  are  not  made.  Influenced  greatly  by  their 
hopes,  the  planters  believe  each  spring  that  it  is  not  going  to  be  a  "  worm 
year."  The  result  is  that  already  described.  It  would  be  better  to  make 
unnecessary  preparations  than  to  suffer  for  want  of  proper  precaution; 
especially  as,  if  there  is  no  occasion  to  use  the  materials  the  season  they 
arc  purchased,  they  can  be  kept  without  loss  or  damage  until  there  is 
occasion  to  use  them. 

Doubtless  in  many  cases  one  reason  why  the  preliminary  arrange- 
ments are  not  made  at  the  proper  time  is  the  financial  depression  which 
has  been  so  general  throughout  the  South.  Many  planters  find  it  neces- 
sary to  borrow  the  money  which  is  used  in  the  cultivation  of  the  crop,  and 
under  such  circumstances  do  not  feel  willing  to  go  to  the  expense  of 
buying  poison  and  machines  for  distributing  it  when  there  is  a  chance 
that  they  will  not  be  needed,  and  in  any  case  the  interest  on  the  invest- 
ment is  to  be  met.  Still  we  believe  that  under  these  circumstances  the 
loss  incurred  by  the  laying  idle  of  capital  invested  in  this  way  ought  to 
be  regarded  in  the  light  of  insurance. 

If  the  poison  to  be  used  be  purchased  during  the  winter,  there  will  be 
time  to  procure  it  directly  from  the  manufacturers,  thus  saving  consid- 
erable in  cost,  and,  what  is  of  much  more  importance,  an  unadulterated 
article  can  be  obtained.  Frequently  those  who  wait  until  they  need 
poison  before  buying  it,  and  are  thus  forced  to  purchase  of  local  dealers, 
pay  from  20  to  75  per  cent,  more  for  an  inferior  article  than  an  unadul- 
terated poison  would  have  cost  if  bought  directly  of  the  manufacturer 
at  a  season  when  there  is  no  great  immediate  demand  for  it.  In  a  simi- 
lar way,  in  case  dry  poisons  are  to  be  used,  doubtless  many  opportunities 
would  occur  for  procuring  flour  at  a  less  cost  than  it  would  be  necessary 
to  pay  at  the  time  it  is  to  be  used. 


238  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

A  very  great  saving  of  time  may  be  accomplished  by  those  who  apply 
poisons  with  water  by  improving  the  facilities  for  getting  it.  The  de- 
tails of  this  will  vary  with  local  conditions.  We  are  led  to  speak  of  it 
from  our  observation  in  the  canebrake  region  of  Alabama.  Although 
this  section  is  one  of  those  which  has  suffered  most  from  the  cotton- 
worm,  and  at  the  same  time  one  which  is  admirably  adapted  for  provid- 
ing supplies  of  water,  little  has  been  done  in  this  direction.  A  large 
part  of  this  region  is  supplied  with  artesian  wells  which  bring  the  water 
several  feet  above  the  surface.  Doubtless  it  would  pay,  in  many  cases, 
to  sink  wells  in  those  parts  of  the  plantation  where  water  is  most  likely 
to  be  needed  for  poisoning;  at  least  tanks  should  be  arranged  at  the 
existing  wells  so  that  barrels  could  be  rapidly  filled  in  time  of  need. 
This,  however,  is  seldom  done.  In  those  sections  in  which  cisterns  are 
used  instead  of  wells,  it  would  pay  to  make  one  or  more  cisterns  in  each 
of  the  larger  cotton-fields,  and  to  see  that  they  were  properly  filled  dur- 
ing the  rainy  season. 

We  wish  also  to  urge  prompt  action  in  the  use  of  poisons.  We  are 
convinced  that  it  does  not  pay  to  wait  for  the  third  crop  of  worms  before 
poisoning  the  cotton.  The  earliest  'brood  in  the  spring  should  be  de- 
stroyed. At  this  season  it  probably  would  be  necessary  to  poison  only 
the  cotton  growing  on  low  land.  Let  those  places  in  which  the  worms 
are  known  by  tradition  to  appear  first  each  season  be  early  and  thor- 
oughly poisoned.  The  expense  of  this  poisoning  need  not  be  great,  for 
not  only  are  such  areas-  of  limited  extent,  but,  as  the  plants  are  small, 
little  poison  will  be  required.  It  will  probably  pay  best  to  use  dry 
poisons  early  in  the  season,  as  but  little  flour  will  be  needed  on  each 
plantation,  thus  doing  away  with  one  of  the  greatest  objections  to  dry 
poisons. 

The  poison  should  be  first  applied  at  a  date  not  later  than  twenty 
days  subsequent  to  that  when  the  cotton  first  appears  above  ground. 
It  will  probably  be  found  necessary,  as  the  successive  broods  of  worms 
appear,  to  poison  larger  and  larger  areas,  until,  with  the  third  crop,  all 
the  cotton  growing  should  be  poisoned ;  doubtless,  however,  it  would 
frequently  occur  that  only  the  rank-growing  cotton  would  need  to  be 
poisoned  even  then.  If  concerted  action  were  taken  throughout  any 
extended  region  in  poisoning  early  in  the  season,  we  do  not  believe  that 
the  worms  would  be  able  to  develop  in  sufficient  numbers  to  do  any 
serious  injury;  at  least,  their  progress  might  thus  be  retarded,  so  that 
the  cotton  would  not  be  stripped  until  too  late  in  the  fall  to  do  damage. 

Wet  poisons. — The  least  expensive  mode  of  applying  poisons,  and  the 
one  most  generally  adopted,  is  with  water.  When  Paris  green,  arsenic, 
or  London  purple  is  used,  it  is  necessary  to  stir  frequently  the  water  into 
which  the  poison  is  put,  as  none  of  these  substances  are  soluble  in  water. 
In  applying  the  mixture  every  leaf  should  be  thoroughly  wet,  and  the 
proportions  used  should  be  such  as  to  distribute  from  twelve  ounces  to 


WHITMAN'S  FOUNTAIN  PUMP.  239 

one  pound  of  Paris  green  over  an  acre ;  with  the  other  poisons  a  smaller 
amount  must  be  used,  on  account  of  the  danger  of  scorching  the  cotton. 

When  Paris  green  was  first  applied  with  water  common  watering-pots 
were  used.  A  man  mounted  upon  a  mule  carried  the  pot  and  sprinkled 
the  plants  as  he  rode  along  the  rows.  Other  hands  kept  this  one  sup- 
plied with  the  mixture.  This  was  found  to  be  a  very  imperfect  method, 
requiring,  as  it  does,  a  great  amount  of  water,  which  is  a  serious  objec- 
tion when  the  water  has  to  be  drawn  a  considerable  distance,  as  is 
usually  the  case.  Moreover,  by  this  method  the  poison  is  not  evenly 
distributed ;  the  hand  (almost  invariably  an  ignorant  and  careless  ne- 
gro, and,  perhaps,  half  asleep)  rides  along  and  deluges  some  plants, 
while  others  are  not  wet  at  all. 

The  most  practical  way  of  applying  wet  poisons  that  has  come  under 
our  observation  is  by  means  of  a  machine  known  as  the  fountain-pump. 
This  is  a  simple  instrument,  the  form  of  which  is  shown  in  Fig.  50. 


FIG.  50. 

It  consists  of  two  brass  tubes,  one  working  telescopically  within  the 
other ;  a  hose  is  fastened  to  one  end  and  a  rose  can  be  attached  to  the 
other ;  this  rose  is  represented  in  the  lower  part  of  the  figure ;  an  ar- 
rangement of  valves  allows  water  to  pass  into  the  pump  through  the 
hose,  but  will  not  allow  it  to  return.  Thus,  when  the  smaller  tube  is 
pulled  out,  the  pump  is  filled  to  its  greatest  capacity ;  by  pushing  this 
tube  back,  the  water  can  be  ejected  with  considerable  force  through  the 
nose  in  a  fine  spray.  In  this  way,  with  a  single  pump,  a  man  can  throw 
the  poison  over  five  rows  of  cotton  at  once,  walking  rapidly  along  the  rows. 
Thus  five  rows  can  be  poisoned  in  about  the  same  time  that  is  required 
to  poison  one  row  with  a  watering-pot.  In  addition  to  the  saving  of 
time,  much  less  water  is  used  with  the  fountain-pump  than  is  required 
with  watering-pots ;  and  as  the  pumps  throw  a  very  fine  spray,  the  poi- 
son can  be  more  evenly  distributed  in  this  way. 

In  using  the  fountain-pump,  one  man  works  the  pump,  another  hand 
(often  a  woman)  accompanies  him  and  carries  the  bucket  containing  the 
mixture.  Other  hands  keep  these  supplied  with  the  poison.  As  some 
parts  of  the  work  are  more  tiresome  than  others,  the  hands  are  trans- 
ferred from  one  part  to  another  at  intervals.  The  water  is  conveyed  to 
and  about  the  fields  as  far  as  possible  in  wagons. 

It  is  estimated  by  those  who  have  had  much  experience  in  applying 
poisons  in  this  way,  that  where  water  is  easily  obtained,  with  one  foun- 
tain-pump and  eight  hands  (three  of  whom  may  be  women)  25  acres  of 


240  REPORT   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

cotton  may  be  poisoned  in  one  day.  The  eight  hands  are  distributed  as 
follows :  One  works  the  pump ;  one  carries  the  bucket  from  which  the 
poison  is  pumped;  three  supply  this  one  with  the  mixture;  three  are 
with  the  wagon  getting  water  and  mixing  the  poison. 

Although  the  plan  just  described  is  the  one  most  generally  used,  we 
think  that  adopted  by  Mr.  Trelease  during  the  present  season  is  prefer- 
able, requiring  as  it  does  fewer  hands.  This  method  is  illustrated  in 
Fig.  51. 

A  40-gallon  barrel  containing  the  mixture  is  placed  on  an  ordinary 
four-wheeled  wagon,  the  wheels  being  5  feet  apart,  and  the  lowest  axle 
23  inches  from  the  ground.  The  wagon  is  drawn  by  two  mules,  these 
walking  in  the  furrows  on  either  side  of  the  row  of  cotton  over  which 
the  wagon  passes.  One  hand  drives  the  team  and  two  others,  provided 
with  fountain  pumps,  distribute  the  poison  from  the  barrel.  In  this  way 
nine  rows  of  cotton  are  poisoned  each  trip  across  the  field.  In  ordinary 
cases  one  or  two  other  hands  with  a  team  can  keep  these  supplied  with 
water.  By  this  method  poison  can  be  applied  .very  rapidly  and  with  a 
minimum  number  of  hands.  The  experiments  show  that  the  cotton  was 
not  seriously  injured  by  the  team  or  wagon,  although  much  of  it  was  as 
high  as  the  top  of  the  wagon-box,  and  there  was  none  that  was  not 
bent  as  the  axle  passed  over  it.  Certainly  the  time  and  labor  saved  will, 
except  in  cases  where  the  cotton  is  very  high  and  closely  interlocked 
between  the  rows,  more  than  pay  for  the  injury  done  to  the  cotton.  I 
suggest  the  following  improvement  to  the  apparatus  used  this  season : 
Have  a  cover  fitted  to  the  barrel  to  prevent  the  spilling  of  the  poison. 
This  cover  should  have  three  holes;  one  for  a  dasher  (similar  to  that 
used  in  churns)  for  agitating  the  mixture;  the  two  other  holes  to  admit 
the  hose  of  the  pumps.  The  dasher  may  be  worked  by  a  boy  or  the  men 
•with  the  pumps. 

Although  the  method  above  described  is  the  most  practicable  yet 
devised,  we  feel  that  it  can  be  improved  upon.  Our  observations  con- 
vince us  that  the  thing  most  needed  is  a  machine  which  can  be  drawn 
by  one  or  two  horses  and  which  will  throw  a  spray  of  water  on  the  under 
side  of  the  leaves. 

The  present  modes  of  poisoning  are  defective  in  that  they  require  a 
large  force  of  hands,  often  when  there  is  much  other  work  to  be  done; 
and  what  is  a  much  more  serious  matter,  as  the  poison  is  applied  to  the 
upper  side  of  the  leaves  of  the  plant,  the  young  larvae  are  not  killed 
until  they  are  large  enough  to  eat  through  the  leaves.  This  would  be 
of  less  importance  could  the  poison  be  made  to  adhere  to  the  leaves; 
but  it  often  happens  that  the  mixtures  are  washed  off  the  plants  by 
rains  soon  after  being  applied,  while  if  they  were  applied  to  the  lower 
surface  of  the  leaves  all  larvae  feeding  at  this  time  would  be  poisoned, 
besides  there  being  less  liability  of  the  poison  being  washed  from  the 
plants. 


WHITMAN'S  FOUNTAIN  PUMP. 


241 


• 


242 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


MR.  WILLIE'S  ATOMIZEE. 


243 


A  machine  intended  to  meet  these  requirements  has  been  invented  by 
Mr.  W.  T.  Daughtry,  of  Selma,  Ala.,  and  is  represented  by  Fig.  52. 
This  consists  of  a  large  cylindrical  reservoir  mounted  upon  wheels  and 
provided  with  an  agitator  for  keeping  the  compounds  well  mixed. 
Force  pumps,  which  are  worked  by  gearing  attached  to  the  hub  of  one 
wheel,  force  air  into  the  reservoir  ;  the  pressure  obtained  in  this  way 
forces  streams  of  fluid  through  the  distributing  pipes ;  each  pipe  extends 
nearly  to  the  ground  and  is  bent  upwards  at  the  end,  which  is  furnished 
with  a  peculiar  nozzle ;  in  this  way  a  fine  spray  can  be  thrown  upon  the 
lower  surface  of  the  leaves.  The  machine  is  made  to  pass  over  two 
rows  of  cotton,  and  the  distributing  pipes  are  so  arranged  that  four 
rows  can  be  poisoned  at  a  time.  Owing  to  its  great  weight,  the  machine 
in  its  present  form  is  impracticable,  but  the  idea  Avhich  it  embodies  is  a 
good  one.  Mr.  Daughtry's  machine  was  patented  February  19,  1878, 
No.  200376. 

1 


FIG.  53.— W.  T.  Willie's  atomizer. 

Another  machine  has  been  invented  for  distributing  liquid  poisons 
upon  cotton,  by  Mr.  William  T.  Willie,  of  Brenham,  Tex.  j  patent  No. 
158345,  dated  December  29,  1874.  It  consists  of  a  frame  which  may 
be  rigidly  secured  to  a  saddle,  in  a  transverse  position,  there  being  cans 
for  holding  the  liquid  and  provided  with  distributing  faucets  arranged 
upon  both  ends  of  the  frame,  the  one  balancing  the  other,  and  one  or 
both  at  the  same  time  may  be  operated  by  the  rider. 


244  REPORT   UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

No.  1  in  the  cut  is  an  end  view  of  the  machine ;  No.  2  is  a  plane  view, 
and  Xo.  3  is  a  side  view  of  the  same. 

A  A'  designate,  respectively,  the  front  and  rear  bars  of  the  frame,  connected  to- 
gether on  each  side  by  means  of  a  platform,  C,  upon  which  are  to  be  placed  oil-cans, 
B,  or  other  convenient  vessels  for  the  reception  of  the  destroying  compounds.  These 
vessels  are  removably  secured  thereto  in  any  suitable  manner,  and  their  outer  lateral 
edges  are  each  provided  with  a  distributing  stop-cock,  D,  having  a  crescent-shaped 
perforated  nozzle-piece,  d,  by  means  of  which  the  liquid  poison  will  be  shed  over  a 
wide  space.  The  front  bar  A  has  an  angular  notch,  E,  cnt  into  its  lower  edge,  near 
the  apex  of  which,  and  one  each  side  thereof,  perforations,  e,  are  made,  by  means  of 
which  it  is  secured  to  the  pommel  of  the  saddle.  It  is  also  provided  with  perforations, 
e7,  upon  its  lower  edge,  by  means  of  which  it  is  laterally  stayed  by  a  rope  passing 
thence  to  the  girth-rings  on  each  side  of  the  saddle.  The  rear  bar  A'  is  in  like  man- 
ner notched,  as  shown  in  Fig.  2,  and  is  provided  with  a  slot,  /,  at  the  apex  of  its 
notch,  by  means  of  which  it  is  strapped  to  the  cantle  of  a  saddle,  and  with  perfora- 
tions, f,  along  its  lower  edge,  serving  as  a  means  of  attachment  for  a  rope,  passing 
thence  to  the  girth-rings  on  each  side. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  description  that  the  frame  is  firmly  attached  both  to 
the  pommel  and  cantle  of  the  saddle,  and  that  it  is  braced  and  steadied  to  resist  dis- 
placement by  ropes  or  straps  leading  from  the  perforations  d  and  f  upon  the  front 
and  rear  bars  of  the  frame,  respectively,  to  the  girth-rings  on  each  side  of  the  saddle, 
constituting  a  simple,  convenient,  and  etfectual  attachment  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting any  displacement.  The  notches  of  the  front  and  rear  bars  A'  A  are  intended 
to  be  straddled  over  that  portion  of  the  pad-frame  of  a  saddle  which  projects  in  front 
of  the  pommel  thereof,  and  extends  in  rear  of  the  cantlo,  the  rider  being  seated  be- 
tween the  two,  with  a  poison-receptacle  on  each  side,  with  their  stop-cocks  within 
easy  reach  of  his  hand.  He  can  thus  accurately  regulate  the  flow  of  poison  accord- 
ing to  the  amount  required  to  effect  the  purpose,  the  movement  of  the  horse  serving 
materially  to  assist  the  distribution. 

Hon.  John  W.  Johnson,  of  Columbus,  Tex.,  has  patented  a  machine 
for  distributing  liquid  poisons  upon  cotton  plants.  This  machine  has 
been  used  to  a  considerable  extent  in  Texas;  it  is  represented  in  Fig.  54. 

The  following  description  will  explain  its  workings : 

This  invention  relates  to  certain  improvements  on  that  for  which  I  filed  an  applica- 
tion for  letters  patent  on  the  22d  day  of  September,  1873;  and  the  invention  consists 
in  a  tank  provided  with  a  double-acting  force-pump,  communicating  with  a  pipe  and 
branches  similar  to  those  described  in  my  application  aforesaid,  the  pump  being  con- 
nected by  a  pitman  with  one  of  the  wheels  upon  which  the  tank  is  supported, 
whereby  the  pump  is  operated  automatically  as  the  apparatus  is  drawn  along,  the 
wheels  upon  which  the  apparatus  is  supported  being  much  smaller  in  diameter  than 
ordinary  cart  or  wagon  wheels,  and  attached  to  the  tank  by  means  of  vertical  bars, 
whereby  the  apparatus  is  enabled  to  pass  over  the  rows  of  cotton-plants  without  in- 
juring them,  while  at  the  same  time  the  dimensions  of  the  wheels  are  such  as  to  give 
the  required  number  of  strokes  to  the  pump-lover  necessary  to  the  producing  of  a  con- 
stant and  full  volume  of  spray  from  the  pipes. 

In  the  accompanying  drawing,  Fig.  1  is  a  side  view  of  my  invention ;  Fig.  2  is  a 
top  view  of  the  same ;  Fig.  3  is  a  sectional  view  of  one  of  the  branch  pipes. 

A  represents  the  tank  containing  the  liquid  compound  described  in  my  application 
aforesaid.  Instead  of  placing  it  upon  an  ordinary  cart  or  wagon  and  working  the  pump 
by  hand,  I  atta«h  the  tank  to  a  platform  or  cart-bed,  B,  provided  with  two  wheels,  C. 
These  wheels  are  much  smaller  than  ordinary  cart-wheels,  being  about  twenty  or  twen- 
ty four  inches  in  diameter,  in  order  to  give  the  required  number  of  revolutions  neces- 
sary to  the  successful  operation  of  the  pump.  In  order  to  place  the  cart-bod  at  such 


JOHNSON'S  LIQUID  POISON  MACHINE. 


245 


an  elevation  as  to  enable  it  to  pass  over  the  rows  of  cotton-plants  without  injuring 
them,  I  attach  to  each  side  the  upper  end  of  a  bar,  D,  the  lower  end  of  which  is  bent 
outward  aud  formed  into  a  spindle 

or  axle  for  the  wheel.    These  bars  .  <?-- 

are  of  such  length  that  when  the 
wheels  are  in  place  the  height  of 
the  cart-bed  from  the  ground  is 
equal  to  that  of  a  vehicle  provided 
with  wheels  from  five  to  six  feet 
in  diameter.  The  wheels  C  may 
be  of  cast-iron,  and  the  bars  D 
may  be  of  wood  or  iron,  as  may 
be  preferred.  One  of  the  wheels 
C  has  a  crank-pin,  c,  formed  on 
or  attached  to  it  at  a  suitable  dis-  -, 

tance  from  the  center,  and  to  this 
crank-pin  is  attached  the  lower 
end  of  a  pitman,  E,  the  upper  end  of  which 
is  attached  to  the  pump-lever,  G.  By  this 
arrangement  the  pump  is  operated  auto- 
matically as  the  apparatus  is  drawn  over 
the  field,  thus  dispensing  with  the  labor 
of  one  man  for  operating  the  pump.  The 
pipe  and  branches  aie  arranged  and  con- 
nected with  the  pump  in  a  similar  man- 
ner to  that  shown  in  my  application  afore- 
said, the  supply-pipe  H  being  provided 
with  a  stop-valve,  I,  to  regulate  the  flow 
of  the  liquid.  The  branch-pipes,  K,  are 
made  of  cast-metal,  instead  of  sheet  metal, 
as  shown  in  my  application  aforesaid,  and 
instead  of  corrugating  the  rnt'tal  as  therein 
shown,  I  form  the  grooves  I  on  the  inner 
surface,  either  during  the  process  of  cast- 
ing or  by  planing  or  cutting  them  out  after-  Fio.  54.— J.  W.  Johnson's  machine, 
ward,  as  may  be  preferred.  The  branch  pipes  thus  formed  are  cheaper  and  more 
durable  than  those  formed  of  corrugated  sheet-metal. 

Dry  poisons. — The  dilution  of  poisons  with  powdered  substances  in- 
stead of  water  has  been  adopted  to  a  considerable  extent,  and  in  some 
respects  is  far  superior  to  the  latter.  The  greatest  obstacle  that  planters 
have  had  to  encounter  in  the  destruction  of  cotton-worms  is  the  removal 
of  the  poison  from  the  plants  by  rain.  It  frequently  occurs  that  before 
a  planter  has  completed  poisoning  a  field  a  sudden  rain  undoes  the  work 
just  performed.  This  obstacle  is  especially  serious,  as  the  rainy  seasons 
are  notably  those  in  which  the  worms  most  rapidly  multiply.  In  fact, 
many  planters  have  been  discouraged,  and  abandoned  the  use  of  poisons 
on  this  account.  This  difficulty  is,  to  a  great  extent,  obviated  by  the 
use  of  flour  as  a  diluting  substance.  The  flour  combining  with  dew  or 
rain  forms  a  paste,  which  glues  the  poison  to  the  leaves.  This  fact  has 
been  so  well  established  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  enlarge  upon  it.  A 
single  instance  may  be  cited  as  an  example:  During  the  present  season, 
on  Capt.  George  O.  Baker's  plantation  at  Selma,  Ala.,  the  mixture  known 
as  Roy  all's  patent  withstood  five  days  of  continual  rain. 


246  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

Our  experiments  show  that  poison  mixed  with  flour  alone  adheres 
nearly  as  well  as  the  above-named  mixture,  resin  and  dextrine  seeming 
to  have  but  little  action.  It  was  also  found  that  flour  can  be  diluted  to 
a  certain  extent  by  gypsum  or  land  plaster.  But  poison  mixed  with 
plaster  alone  adhered  but  little  better  than  when  applied  with  water. 

Another  advantage  gained  by  the  use  of  dry  poisons  is  that  there  is 
less  danger  of  injuring  the  cotton  than  when  water  is  used. 

The  great  objection  to  this  method  of  poisoning  is  its  cost,  the  price 
of  the  flour  adding  materially  to  the  expense;  and,  also,  no  way  has  yet 
been  devised  and  brought  into  general  use  of  applying  dry  mixtures  as 
rapidly  and  easily  as  liquid  poisons  may  be  applied.  We  believe,  how- 
ever, that  unless  some  method  is  devised  for  throwing  a  spray  of  liquid 
poison  upon  the  lower  surface  of  the  leaves,  where  it  will  be  less  liable 
to  be  washed  off  by  rain,  dry  poisons  will  be  found  most  practicable; 
and  we  feel  sure  that  the  objections  of  the  expense  can,  to  a  great  ex- 
tent, be  removed.  Further  experiments  are  necessary  to  devise  a  cheaper 
method  of  distributing  powdered  substances  over  plants,  and  to  deter- 
mine to  what  extent  the  flour  may  be  profitably  replaced  by  plaster  or 
some  other  cheap  material.  The  cost  of  the  flour  can  doubtless  be  les- 
sened by  using  a  poorer  quality,  which  might  be  manufactured  for  the 
purpose  from  inferior  or  injured  wheat.  If  a  machine  could  be  invented 
by  which  a  mixture  of  one  pound  of  Paris  green  and  two  pounds  of  flour 
could  be  quickly  and  evenly  distributed  over  an  acre  of  plants,  the  same 
end  would  be  gained. 

The  simplest  method  of  applying  dry  poisons,  and  the  one  most  gener- 
ally used,  is  by  means  of  a  tin  vessel  holding  about  a  gallon,  provided 
with  a  handle  and  having  a  bottom  made  of  perforated  tin.  By  means 
of  this  the  poison  can  be  sifted  over  the  plants.  Tins,  however,  is  a 
slow  process,  as  only  one  row  at  a  time  is  poisoned. 

Some||)lanters  practice  sowing  the  mixture  when  there  is  a  light  wind, 
being  in  this  way  enabled  to  poison  several  rows  at  once.  Aside  from 

the  fact  that  the  conditions  favorable 
for  this  method  cannot  be  relied  upon, 
the  poison  cannot  be  as  thoroughly 
distributed  as  is  desirable. 

A  device  has  been  invented  by  Mr. 
J.  W.  Young,  of  Southfleld,  Mich.,  for 
dusting  Paris  green  upon  potato- vines; 
by  means  of  this,  two  rows  can  be 
poisoned  at  once.  The  form  is  shown 
in  Fig.  55 : 

The  weight  of  the  apparatus  is  bal- 
FIG.  55.— Young's  sifter.  auced  upon  the  shoulders  by  means 

of  a  neck-yoke,  thus  leaving  the  hands  and  arms  free  to  move  the 
handles.  Each  handle  is  attached  to  a  brush  that  works  horizontally 
across  holes  in  the  bottom  of  the  can.  The  cans  are  adjustable  to  the 


s.  D.  ALLEN'S  SIFTER. 


247 


width  of  the  rows  or  height  of  crop.  Doubtless  this  machine  would  be 
found  much  better  than  the  hand-dusters,  especially  when  poisoning 
small  cotton. 

Fig.  56  represents  an  apparatus  for  distributing  powdered  substances 
upon  plants,  invented  by  Mr.  Samuel  D.  Allen,  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Patent  No.  178704. 


FIG.  53. — Allen's  duster. 


1  is  a  side  view  of  the  device ;  2,  an  enlarged  vertical  sectional  view  of  part  of  the 
same;  3,  a  transverse  section  on  the  line  1,  2,  of  2. 

The  poisoning  compound  is  contained  in  a  reservoir,  A,  and  is  forced  in  small  quan- 
tities at  a  time  through  a  spout,  «,  by  means  of  air  forced  into  the  reservoir  from  a 
pair  of  bellows,  D,  or  other  blowing  mechanism,  to  which  are  connected  arms,  B,  B', 
by  means  of  which  the  bellows  may  be  operated,  a  spring,  c,  being  attached  to  the 
end  of  an  upright,  /,  to  serve  or  assist  in  distending  the  bellows.  Thes  apparatus  is 
mounted  on  a  wheel,  s,  which  imparts  motion  to  the  bellows  through  the  medium  of 
a  rod,  p,  and  studs,  n,  on  the  wheel.  By  each  stud  the  rod  is  drawn  downward  until 
it  is  freed  by  springing  away  from  the  stud,  when  it  will  rise  by  the  action  of  the 
spring  e.  The  outer  end  of  the  lower  arm  B'  is  adapted  to  a  segmental  rod,  g,  and  is 
provided  with  a  det-screw,  by  tightening  which  the  arms  and  bellows  may  be  con- 
fined in  any  relative  position  to  which  they  may  be  adjusted — as  shown,  for  instance, 
by  dotted  lines  in  Fig.  1.  The  reservoir  A  is  provided  at  one  end  with  a  funnel,  d, 
through  which  the  material  is  introduced  into  the  reservoir,  and  at  the  opposite  end 
is  an  inclined  spout,  a,  over  the  end  of  which  is  fitted  a  funnel-shaped  guard  or  shield, 
6,  which  protects  the  end  of  the  spout,  and  prevents  the  clogging  up  of  the  same 
when  used  among  wet  foliage. 


248 


REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 


The  object  of  making  the  spout  inclined,  as  shown,  is  to  enable  it  to  discharge 
either  up  or  down,  or  on  either  side,  as  desired,  without  changiug  the  position  of  the 
bellows  D,  the  change  being  effected  by  merely  turning  the  reservoir  around  on  the 
nozzle  m  of  the  bellows  until  the  spout  is  pointed  in  the  proper  direction. 

The  reservoir  A  is  divided  in  the  present  instance  by  two  longitudinal  partitions,  i 
i,  which  break  up  the  contents  of  the  reservoir  and  prevent  them  from  accumulating 
in  the  lower  portion  of  the  same  —  openings  jj,  liowever,  allowing  such  communication 
as  will  permit  the  entrance  of  sufficient  material  into  the  lower  portion  of  the  reser- 
voir to  supply  the  place  of  that  expelled  at  each  blast  of  the  bellows,  thus  insuring  an 
even  discharge  of  the  whole  contents  of  the  reservoir. 

In  order  to  cause  the  air  to  act  only  on  the  portion  contained  in  this  lower  division, 
the  nozzle  has  an  inclined  face,  11,  in  which  the  perforations  for  the  escape  of  the  air 
are  formed,  the  air  being  thus  directed  against  the  bottom  of  the  reservoir,  and  carry- 
ing with  it  a  small  quantity  of  the  contents,  which  are  expelled  through  the  spout  a. 
A  perforated  disk,  x,  is  inserted  into  the  entrance  of  this  spout,  to  assist  in  distribut- 
ing the  contents  evenly. 

This  machine  has  been  largely  used  for  the  potato-beetle  and  for 
green-house  work.  It  was  invented  when  people  were  much  afraid  of 
handling  Paris  green  ;  of  late  it  has  been  used  but  little,  as  it  is  worth- 
less for  distributing  bulky  compounds  like  Hogal's  patent  and  others 
now  used.  It  may  be  found  that  much  less  bulky  compounds  will  an- 
swer as  well  ;  in  which  case  there  will  be  a  demand  for  a  machine  of 
this  kind. 

Mr.  W.  T.  Willis,  of  Brenham,  Tex.,  has  also  invented  a  machine  for 
the  purpose  of  distributing  dry  poison  upon  the  plants.  This  machine 
is  adapted  to  be  secured  across  the  front  part  of  a  saddle  and  to  be  oper- 
ated by  the  rider. 

Ko.  2  in  the  accompanying  figure  is  a  sectional  view  of  the  machine. 
No'.  3  is  a  detail  view. 

A  A  designate  two  boxes  of  any  suitable  capacity,  which  are  constructed  with  two 
fixed  sieves,  p  p,  and  movable  sieves  p',  arranged  between  the  fixed  sieves  and  sup- 

ported upon  rods,  so  as  to  elide 
freely  when  the  boxes  are  vi- 
brated, and  aid  in  pulverizing  the 
material,  and  at  the  same  time 
scattering  it  uniformly.  The 
upper  sieves  p  will  support  the 
bulk  of  the  material  free  from 
the  scattering-sieves  p1.  Each 
box  has  secured  to  it  a  suspen- 
sion-standard, B,  having  a  num- 
ber of  holes,  a,  through  it,  ar- 
ranged one  above  another,  and 
adapted  to  receive  suspension- 


pins  ft  c,  and  allow  the  boxes  to 
be  adjusted  vertically  for  high  or 
low  plants.  C  designates  a  bar, 
from  which  rises  a  guide-rod,  C'.  This  bar  C  is  intended  to  be  secured  by  the  middle 
of  its  length  to  a  riddmg-saddle  in  front  of  the  rider,  and  through  its  ends  holes  are 
made,  through  which  the  standards  B  B  are  passed,  and  sustained  by  means  of  the 
pins  c  c.  Supplemental  holes  are  made  through  the  bar  C,  to  allow  the  boxes  A  A 
to  be  adjusted  for  rows  of  plants  varying  in  -width.  D  designates  a  bar,  the  ends  of 


No.  2. 


FIG.  57.— Willis'  sifter. 


N.    A.    DAVIS7    SIFTER. 


249 


which  are  slotted  longitudinally  to  receive  the  standards  B  B,  and  at  or  near  the 
middle  of  the  length  of  this  bar  D  a  hole  is  made  to  receive  freely  through  it  the  rod 
C'.  The  ends  of  bar  D  are  notched  at  «,  and  are  attached  to  the  standards  B  B  by 
fitting  these  notches  over  the  pins  6  6,  as  shown  in  Figs.  1  and  2. 

The  machine  thus  described  is  operated  while  the  horse  is  traveling  between  the 
rows  of  plants  by  giving  endwise  motion  to  the  bar  D,  which  will  communicate  vi- 
brating motions  to  the  sifting-boxes  and  scatter  the  powder  over  the  plants. — [Patent 
No.  160,986,  dated  M  arch  6,  1875.] 

Fig.  58  illustrates  the  machine  patented  by  Mr.  Nicholas  A.  Davis, 
of  Eusk,  Tex. 

No.  1.  -      . 


FIG.  58.— N.  A.  Davis'  sifter. 

No.  1  represents  the  invention  attached  to  a  cart ;  No.  2  is  a  cross- 
section  through  the  line  y  y. 

In  the  drawings,  A  represents  an  ordinary  farm-cart,  across  the  rear  end  of  which  is 
secured  the  horizontal  shaft  B,  having  its  bearings  in  the  arms  c  c,  projecting  behind  the 
cart.  On  the  shaft  B,  I  place  two  or  more  loosely- revolving  perforated  cylinders,  E, 
being  revolved  upon  the  shaft,  which  carries  a  pulley,  a,  over  which  a  band  or  cord 
works,  passing  to  the  hub  of  the  cart-wheel,  from  which  it  receives  motion,  and  thus 
causes  the  shaft  B  to  revolve  when  the  cart  is  in  motion,  and  the  shaft,  Carrying  the' 
perforated  cylinders,  previously  filled  with  the  powdered  poison,  causes  the  poison  to 
be  sifted  out  and  distributed  over  the  cotton  plants.  Attached  to  the  inner  end  of 
each  of  the  outside  cylinders  is  a  spiral  spring,  6,  coiled  around  the  shaft,  A,  and  so 
arranged  as  to  secure  an  easy,  gentle,  lateral  motion  to  the  cylinders  in  case  of  a  sud- 
den jar  given  the  machine,  and  thus  prevent  too  great  a  discharge  of  the  poison  at 
any  one  point. 

It  is  evident  that  a  similar  spring  may  be  used  at  the  opposite  end  of  the  cylinders, 
so  as  to  check  the  jar  in  both  directions. 

From  the  above  description  of  the  invention,  it  is  evident  that  it  could  be  affixed 
to  any  kind  of  frame  moving  on  wheels,  and  by  a  hand-crank  and  ordinary  cog-gearing 
be  successfully  worked.— [Patent  No.  154651,  dated  September  7,  1874.] 


2f>0 


REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 


Fig.  59  represents  the  patent  of  Mr.  Charles  F.  Levy,  of  Natehi- 

toches,  La. 

No.  i.  No.  2. 


FIG.  59. — C.  A.  Levy's  machine. 

.No.  1  is  a  side  view  of  the  machine  j  No.  2  is.  a  side  view  partly  in 
section  hrough  one  of  the  cylinders. 

A  are  1  wo  cylinders  formed  by  attaching  the  wire  gauze  or  finely-perforated  sheet- 
metal  to  circular  ends  or  disks.  To  the  inner  surfaces  of  the  cylinders  A  are  attached 
longitudinal  strips  B,  to  one  side  of  each  of  which  is  attached  a  strip  C,  of  tin  or  other 
suitable  sheet-metal,  which  strips  thus  form  flanges,  which,  as  the  cylinders  revolve, 
raise  the  compound  and  allow  it  to  fall  back,  so  as  to  keep  it  stirred  up  and  prevent 
the  heavier  ingredients  from  settling  and  thus  escaping  in  too  largo  a  proportion 
and  unevenly.  The  cylinders  A  are  placed  upon  the  end  parts  of  a  shaft,  D,  and  are 
secured  in  place  adjustably  by  keys  or  nuts,  so  that  they  may  be  movt  d  toward  or 
from  each  other  to  correspond  with  the  distance  apart  of  the  rows  of  plants.  Upon 
the  middle  part  of  the  shaft  D  is  formed  a  crank,  d',  by  means  of  which  the  cylinders 
revolved,  either  by  taking  hold  of  said  crank  d'  directly,  or  by  a  short  handle,  E, 
pivoted  to  said  crank.  The  shaft  D  revolves  in  eyes  in  the  upper  ends  of  two  bars, 
F,  the  upp%r  parts  of  which  are  curved  to  give  room  for  the  crank  d'  to  operate.  The 
lower  parts  of  the  bars  F  are  parallel  with  each  other,  and  pass  down  upon  the  oppo- 
site sides  of  the  standard  G,  to  which  they  are  secured  by  a  bolt,  H,  which  passes 
through  a  hole  in  the  lower  parts  of  the  snid  bars  F,  and  through  a  slot  in  the  said 
standard  G,  so  that  by  loosening  the  hand-nut  h'  of  the  bolt  H  the  cylinder  A  may  be 
raised  and  lowered,  as  the  height  of  the  cotton  plants  may  require. 

The  bars  F  may  be  kept  from  turning  upon  the  bolt  H  by  lugs  formed  upon  the 
inner  sides  of  the  bars  F,  and  which  enter  the  slot  of  the  standard  G,  or  by  a  second 
bolt. 

The  lower  end  of  the  standard  G  is  branched,  and  has  screw-holes  formed  through 
said  branches  to  receive  the  screws  or  bolts  by  which  the  machine  is  secured  to  the 
forward  part  of  a  saddle,  or  to  the  frame  of  a  snlky,  according  as  it  is  designed  to 
operate  the  machine  upon  horseback  or  upon  wheels. — [Patent  No.  154690,  dated 
September  1,  1874.] 


MACHINE    OF   F.    A.    ELDRIDGE. 


251 


The  insect-destroyer  patented  by  Mr.  Frank  A.  Eldridge,  of  Brenham, 
Tex.,  is  also  designed  to  distribute  dry  poisons  over  the  cotton  plant. 

The  nature  of  the  invention  consists  in  the  employment,  upon  a  suita- 
ble vehicle,  of  two  or  more  recepta- 
cles for  containing  poison-powder, 
which  receptacles  have  perforated 
or  sieve  bottoms,  and  contain  with- 
in them  rotary  stirring-blades  and 
brushes,  actuated  as  will  be  herein- 
after explained,  whereby  the  poison- 
dust  can  be  regularly,  and  at  the  same 
time  economically,  distributed  upon 
two  or  more  rows  of  plants  at  the 
same  time. 

No.  lisa  top  view  of  the  machine  ;  No.  2  is 
a  side  elevation  showing  one  of  the  poison- 
receptacles  in  section  ;  No  3  is  a  front  eleva- 
tion. 

A  designates  the  axle  of  two  transport- 
ing-wheels,  B  B,  from  which  axle  rises  a 
frame,  C,  carrying  three  poison-powder 
receptacles,  D  D  D',  which  are  preferably 
of  cylindrical  form,  and  which  have  finely 
perforated  bottoms  a.  The  two  side  recepta- 
cles, D  D,  arc  arranged  so  as  to  distribute 
the  powder  upon  two  rows  of  plants,  and 
the  rear  receptacle  distributes  the  powder 
upon  the  intermediate  row,  thus  playing 
on  three  rows  at  the  same  time.  Each 
receptacle  contains  radial  blades  &,  which 
are  applied  to  a  central  shaft,  c,  and  pro- 
vided with  brushes  d,  which  act  upon  the 
perforated  bottom  a. 

The  blades  6  stir  the  powder,  and  prevent 
it  from  clogging,  and  the  brushes  compel  it 
to  pass  through  the  screen-bottoms  in  a  uni- 
form manner. 

The  upper  ends  of  the  shafts  c  of  the  re- 
ceptacles  D  D  have  spur-wheels  e  on  them, 
wnien  eugage  with  spur-wheels  /  on  the 


FJQ  ^.-F.  A.  Eldridge's  machine. 


ends  of  a  horizontal  shaft,  E,  which  has  its  bearings  on  top  of  the  frame  C,  tond  which 
is  provided  with  pulleys  g  g  g'.  The  pulleys  g  g  receive  rotation  from  pulleys  on  the 
inner  ends  of  the  hubs  of  wheels  B  B  through  the  medium  of  belts  h  h. 

The  rotation  thus  given  to  shaft  E  is  transmitted  to  the  shaft  c  of  the  blades  and 
brushes  which  are  in  the  receptacle  D'. 

The  machine  thus  described  will  be  propelled  by  two  horses  hitched  to  the  draft- 
tongue  A',  and,  if  desired,  the  axle  A  may  be  centrally  arched,  so  as  not  to  interfere 
with  the  plants  over  which  it  passes. 

Mr.  William  T.  Eobinson,  of  Huntsville,  Tex.,  has  invented  a  machine 
that  combines  a  sprinkler  and  duster,  so  that  dry  or  fluid  poisons  may  be 
applied  at  the  will  of  the  operator,  or  the  plants  may  first  be  sprinkled 


252 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


and  the  dry  poison  applied  immediately  after  this,  causing  the  powder 
to  adhere  better. 


FIG.  61. — W.  T.  Robinson's  combined  sprinkler  and  duster. 

No.  1  is  a  plane  view  and  No.  2  is  a  longitudinal  sectional  elevation  of  Mr.  Robin- 
sou's  machine. 

A  is  :i  two-wheeled  truck,  of  proper  height  and  width  to  run  along  above  one  row 
and  provided  with  a  tongue  to  hitch  on  the  animals,  so  as  to  go  on  opposite  sides  of 
the  row.  B  is  a  liquid-holding  tank  on  the  front  part  of  the  frame.  C  is  a  sprink- 
ling-tube, connected  with  the  tank  and  extending  across  the  frame  and  beyond  far 
enough  to  reach  the  two  outside  rows,  and  having  small  perforations,  D,  at  lli<-  ends, 
and  also  at  the  middle,  E,  for  sprinkling  the  liquid  upon  the  three  rows  of  cotton.  A 
gate  or  valve,  F,  is  arranged  in  the  tank  to  shut  off  the  liquid  from  the  sprinkling- 
tube  when  it  is  not  required  to  flow,  and  also  regulate  the  discharge.  The  end  of  this 
tube  is  to  be  closed  with  a  cap  or  plug,  so  that  it  can  bo  opened,  and  be  swabbed  out 
from  time  to  time,  as  it  becomes  foul.  Behind  the  truck  is  a  horizontal  shaft,  G,  ex- 
tending each  way  beyond  the  wheels,  for  reaching  over  the  outside  rows,  and  carrying 
three  or  more  revolving  screens  or  sieves,  H,  for  sprinkling  on  powdered  substances. 
Said  shaft  is  mounted  on  the  rear  end  of  the  frame  I,  which  is  jointed  to  the  truck  at 
J,  and  suspended  from  the  frame  M  by  ropes,  L,  which  arc  wound  up  on  the  shaft  N, 
or  let  out  from  it,  to  shift  the  screens  according  to  the  height  of  the  plants.  The  shaft 


DESTRUCTION  OF  WORMS  BY  MACHINERY. 


253 


is  revolved  by  a  belt,  O,  from  one  of  the  wheels  of  the  truck,  working  on  cone-pulleys, 
P  O,  for  varying  the  speed  of  the  screens  or  sieves,  as  may  he  required.  The  pulley  O 
on  the  shaft  G  connects  with  it  by  a  clutch,  R,  which  is  connected  v.ith  a  shiiting- 
lever,  S,  for  throwing  the  shaft  out  of  gear  when  turning  around  at  the  ends  of  the 
rows,  to  save  waste  of  material.  T'is  a  box  for  carrying  the  stock  of  powder,  from 
which  to  replenish  the  screens  or  sieves  as  they  become  exhausted  from  time  to  time. 
Said  box  may  be  also  used  for  a  seat  for  the  driver.  The  sieves  are  supplied  through 
an  opening  in  the  ends,  which  may  be  closed  by  a  gate  or  door  of  any  kind,  or  by  an 
opening  in  the  side  similarly  closed.  Both  attachments,  the  one  with  sieves  for  sifting 
on  in  powder,  and  the  one  for  sprinkling  in  fluid,  are  detachably  connected  to  the 
frame. 

When  it  is  desired  to  put  on  the  poison  with  the  sieves,  in  powder,  the  sprinkling 
attachment  is  used  for  the  purpose  of  dampening  the  plant,  causing  the  powder  to  ad- 
here more  firmly,  so  that  the  process  may  be  continued  through  the  whole  day. 

If  it  is  desired  to  put  on  the  poison  in  liquid,  then  the  sprinkling  attachment  need 
only  be  used. 

DESTRUCTION   OF  LARVAE  BY  MACHINERY. 

Two  machines  have  been  invented  and  patented  for  the  purpose  of 
brushing  the  worms  from  the  cotton  plant  and  destroying  them.  Neither 
of  these  machines,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  ascertain,  have  come  into 
general  use.  It  is  doubtful  if  a  practicable  machine  of  this  kind  can  be 
constructed,  owing  to  the  danger  of  knocking  off  the  bolls  of  cotton  when 
in  operation.  The  following  is  an  illustration  of  the  machine  invented 
by  Mr.  Jackson  Helm,  of  Hochheim,  Tex. : 

No.  1. 


1  is  a  side  elevation  5  2  is  a  vertical  transverse  section  of  the  lower 
part  of  the  same,  taken  on  the  plane  of  the  line  c  c,  1 ;  3  is  a  vertical 
transverse  section  on  the  line  ft  Jc,  1. 

In  the  accompanying  cut  the  letter  A  represents  a  frame  composed  of  two  bottom- 
boards,  a  a,  of  four  or  more  uprights,  6  Z>,  and  a  suitable  series  of  cross-braces,  d  d.  The 
boards  a  a  are  on  a  level  and  parallel  to  each  other,  and  have  wings  e  e  and  //  hinged 
to  their  inner  and  outer  edges,  respectively.  To  each  of  the  frqnt  posts  Z>  is  pivoted, 


254 


REPORT    UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 


at  g,  a  lever  B,  which  carries  a  wheel,  C,  at  its  front  end..  There  are  thus  two  such 
wheels,  C  C,  that  rest  on  the  ground  in  front  of  the  apparatus.  Draft-hooks  /<  h  are 

applied  to  the  front  ends  of  the 
levers  B  for  hitching  the  draft  ani- 
mals to,  by  which  the  machine  is 
drawn  over  the  field.  The  lovers 
B  can  be  swung  on  their  pivots,  to 
raise  the  frame  A  on  the  wheels  C, 
whenever  stones,  stumps,  or  other 
obstructions  are  to  be  avoided.  In 

>  2.  such  case  the  levers  B  are  or  can 

be  locked  to  toothed-plates  i,  which 

are  applied  to  the  rear  posts  6,  as  indicated  in  Fig.  2.  When  the  machine  is  to 
be  turned,  it  is  also  necessary  to  elevate  the  frame  A  off  the  ground,  and  throw  the 
whole  weight  of  the  apparatus  upon  the  wheels  C.  Whenever  the  frame  A  is  thus 
raised,  the  wings  e  and  /  will  be  swung  up,  to  clear  the  upper  expanded  parts  of  the 

No.  3. 


FIG.  (52.— Helm's  machine. 

cotton-plants.  This  is  done  by  connecting  the  two  wings  that  arc  hinged  to  each 
board  a  with  each  other  by  a  string  j,  which  passes  over  the  lever  B,  so  that  in  swing- 
ing up  such  lever,  the  string  will  be  drawn  with  it  to  contract  or  swing  up  the  wing. 
In  the  front  ends  of  two  horizontal  bars  I  I,  that  are  longitudinally  secured  to  the 
upper  parts  of  the  posts  ft,  is  hung  a  tranverse  drum  or  shaft  D,  and  from  which  a 
series  of  pointed  brushes,  E  E,  are  suspended.  Brushes  F  F  are  also  rigidly  affixed  to 
a  cross-bar,  wi,  back  of  the  shaft  D,  and  to  inclined  bars  n  w,  that  are  secured  to  the 
sides  of  the  frame  A.  These  several  brushes  are  made  of  split  white-oak,  or  other 
suitable  material. 

For  use,  the  machine  is  placed  to  straddle  a  row  of  cotton  between  the  inner  wings 
e  c.  The  boards  a  a  rest  in  the  furrows  and  the  outer  wings  on  the  rising  sides  of  the 
adjoining  ridges,  all  as  clearly  shown  in  Fig.  2.  The  wings  rest  with  their  weight  on 
the  sides  of  the  ridges.  The  machine  being  drawn  ahead,  the  shaft  D  is  revolved  by 
its  brushes  E,  which  come  in  contact  with  the  cotton-plants.  Also,  by  subsequent 
contact  with  the  brushes  F  F,  the  worms  are  all  swept  to  the  ground,  on  which  they 
are  finally  crushed  and  destroyed  by  the  weight  of  the  boards  a,  and  wings  cf. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  as  the  machine  is  drawn  successively  over  the  several  rows 
or  ridges  of  cotton,  each  side  of  each  ridge  is  twice  pressed,  once  by  an  outer  wing,  /, 


WILLIAM   EWING  S   MACHINE. 


255 


and  then  by  an  inner  wing,  e;  once  while  the  apparatus  straddles  an  adjoining  ridge, 
and  then  again  while  it  straddles  the  same  ridge  to  which  such  side  pertains. —  [Patent 
No.  139062,  dated  November  16,  1872.] 

The  inventor  of  the  other  machine  for  knocking  the  worms  off  the 
cotton  plant  is  Mr.  William  Ewiug,  of  Columbia,  La.  Mr.  Ewiug,  in  his 
letters  patent,  says: 

It  is  well  known  to  planters  and  cultivators  of  the  cotton-plant,  that  scarcely  a 
season  passes  over  in  which  material  injury  is  not  done  to  the  crop  by  the  cotton- 
worm.  Generally  the  loss  occurring  by  this  source  of  damage  will  amount  to  one-half, 
but  in  many  seasons  the  entire  crop  is  ruined. 

Various  efforts  have,  therefore,  been  made  to  destroy  the  cotton-worm. 

On  carefully  studying  the  growth  and  habits  of  the  cotton-worm,  I  ascertained  that 
one  of  its  leading  instincts  is  to  drop  or  throw  itself  off  from  the  plant,  upon  moderate 
disturbance  of  the  leaves  and  branches.  It  is  upon  this  instinct  that  my  invention  is 
based;  and 


FIG.  63.— W.  Swing's  machine. 

My  invention  consists  in  the  use  of  a  machine  or  apparatus,  so  constructed  that  it 
may  be  drawn  by  hand,  or  by  a  horse  or  mule,  between  the  rows  of  the  plants,  and 
agitating  the  leaves  or  stems,  disturb  the  worms,  and  cause  them  to  carry  out  their 
instinct,  and  drop  or  throw  themselves  off  from  the  plants. 

If  such  disturbance  be  made  by  any  suitable  means,  the  worms  will  usually  diop  to 
the  ground,  and  where  only  a  few  acres  are  cultivated,  reliance  may  be  placed  upon 
the  destruction  of  the  worms  by  the  fowls  or  chickens  of  the  plantation ;  but  in  large 
fields,  some  means  for  securing  the  worms  and  removing  them  will  have  to  be  resorted 
to.  Such  means  are  provided  under  my  invention. 

No.  1  of  Fig.  G3  represents  the  top  of  the  machine ;  ~$o  2,  a  side  view 
of  the  same ;  and  No.  3,  a  view  of  one  of  the  arms  detached. 

It  will  be  seen,  by  reference  to  the  cut,  that  upon  a  frame,  a,  constructed  of  wood,-  or 
other  suitable  material,  is  stretched  or  fastened  canvas,  6,  or  some  proper  fabric,  the 
frame  having  wheels  c  d  e  and  a  yoke,  /,  or  drawing  device. 


256  REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

Upon  the  front  wheel  e,  on  either  side,  are  pins,  g,  which  act  upon  the  lower  ends  h 
of  the  arms  i  as  the  wheel  is  rotated.  These  arms  are  pivoted  to  plates,  j,  and  extend 
upward  and  outward,  so  as  to  pass  along  the  sides  and  over  the  tops  of  the  plants. 

To  the  upper  parts  of  these  arms,  other  tnbu'ar  arms,  k,  are  affixed,  so  that  the 
brushes  J,  secured  thereto,  may  be  adjusted,  elevated,  or  lowered  to  the  height  of  the 
plants. 

These  brushes  are  held  in  place  by  eyes  or  rings  m. 

Now,  if  the  canvas  b  be  smeared  with  tar,  or  any  other  material  to  which  the  worms 
will  stick  or  adhere  for  a  reasonable  length  of  time,  as  the  machine  is  drawn  or  pushed 
forward  the  worms  will  be  dislodged  from  the  plants,  and  falling  upon  the  smeared 
surface  of  the  canvas  may  easily  be  gathered  up  and  destroyed. 

The  machine  or  apparatus  here  shown  and  described  is  intended  to  be  passed  be- 
tween two  rows  of  the  plants,  and  will  not,  therefore,  be  likely  to  catch  all  the  worms 
that  may  be  disturbed  and  fall.  If  to  such  machine,  however,  a  light  frame  of  wire 
rods  or  cane  be  attached  to  the  side  bars,  and  extending  upward  above  the  top  of  the 
plants,  and  thence  down  to  near  the  ground,  and  there  have  a  frame  to  which  can- 
vas is  affixed,  two  rows  of  plants  will  be  operated  upon  at  the  same  time,  and  all  the 
worms  be  caught ;  or  if  two  machines  like  that  here  shown  be  used,  each  traveling 
between  two  rows  of  the  plants,  and  by  some  such  frame-work  as  here  named  have  a 
canvas  sack  or  bed  between  the  intervening  two  rows  of  plants,  then  one  or  more  rows 
may  also  be  acted  upon. 

In  this  arrangement  of  the  machine  or  apparatus,  the  brushes  or  their  substitutes 
would  have  to  be  differently  located  from  those  here  shown.  Such  difference  of  loca- 
tion and  means  for  operating  the  brushes  will  readily  occur  to  any  individual  desiring 
to  construct  a  machine  having  these  modifications. — [Patent  No.  95,995,  dated  October 
19,  1869.] 

DESTRUCTION  OF  PUPAE. 

Although  the  collection  and  destruction  of  the  pupae  of  Aletia  at  the 
season  during  which  the  greatest  damage  is  done  would  be  impracticable, 
much  good  could  be  accomplished  in  this  way  if  attempted  at  the  proper 
time.  Early  in  the  season,  while  the  cotton  plants  are  small,  it  is  an 
easy  matter  to  detect  the  presence  of  pupae  by  searching  for  the 
folded  leaves  containing  them.  As  already  suggested,  when  treating 
of  the  collection  of  larvae  by  hand,  it  doubtless  would  be  profitable  to 
offer  the  negroes  a  prize  for  each  pupa  obtained  at  this  time.  The  folded 
leaves  are  so  easily  observed  that  with  little  care  nearly  every  pupa  in 
a  field  could  be  collected  while  chopping  out  the  cotton  in  the  spring. 
In  the  autumn  many  pupae  could  be  destroyed  by  collecting  together 
and  burning  the  weeds  in  the  leaves  of  which  the  larvae  have  webbed 
up.  This  should  be  done  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  last  brood  webs 
up,  and  before  the  moths  emerge  from  the  pupae  state. 

DESTRUCTION  OF  MOTHS. 

As  to  the  possibility  of  destroying  a  sufficient  number  of  moths  to 
materially  lessen  the  numbers  of  the  worms,  opinions  differ  greatly 
among  planters.  The  following  extracts  from  our  correspondence  will 
serve  to  show  the  disbelief  in  such  remedies  th  at  prevails.  These  extracts 
are  from  letters  from  all  parts  of  the  cotton  belt : 

''I  haver  seen  fires  used  at  night  and  drugs  used  to  poison,  but  don't  believe  it  ever 
did  any  good,  for  the  worm  finally  ate  up  all  the  cotton." 

"Efforts  have  been  made  to  allure  and  destroy  the -moths,  years  ago,  by  lights  and 


POISONED    SWEETS   VS.    COTTON   MOTHS.  257 

poisoned  sugar,  molasses,  and  vinegar.  While  they  destroyed  large  quantities  of  the 
insects,  it  did  not  seem  to  affect  the  numbers  of  worms  to  any  extent." 

"  Some  years  ago  the  planters  (many  of  them)  used  tin  plates  made  for  the  purpose, 
on  which  was  placed  vinegar  sweetened  with  sugar  or  molasses.  Fires  were  also 
made  on  stands  in  the  field  to  attract  the  fly»  But  as  they  have  been  generally 
abandoned  I  suppose  the  results  were  not  satisfactory." 

"  Efforts  made  to  destroy  moths  have  all  of  them  proved  failures.  None  of  them 
are  worth  a  cent." 

''But  little  has  been  accomplished.  Much  money  has  been  wasted  in  efforts  to  poison 
them." 

"  Lights  at  night  and  sweetened  baits  have  been  used,  but  with  such  unsatisfactory 
results  as  to  be  abandoned.  I  have  known  little  success  to  follow  the  efforts  to  de- 
stroy the  moths." 

"  Every  effort  to  destroy  the  moth  by  allurement  or  traps  are  consummate  failures. 
I  have  experimented  in  trying  to  decoy  and  known  others  to  try  fires,  traps,  and 
lamps  at  night,  and  every  effort  was  worthless  and  a  loss  of  time ;  vinegar,  molasses, 
&c.,  on  plates  or  otherwise,  worth  nothing." 

"  The  different  methods  have  been  tried  to  destroy  the  moth  but  all  have  failed." 

"  But  little  value  is  attached  to  this  method  of  destruction.  It  has  only  been  tried 
on  a  limited  scale.  Poisons,  torches,  &c.,  have  been  used  with  but  little  success." 

"Many  futile  and  unsuccessful  efforts  have  been  made,  such  as  poisoning  and  build- 
ing fires,  but  all  have  proved  to  be  failures." 

"I  do  not  believe  any  of  the  methods  of  destruction  mentioned  would  do  any  good." 

"No  good  has  resulted  from  the  efforts  to  allure  and  destroy  the  moths;  no  actual 
benefit  from  poisoned  sugar,  molasses,  and  vinegar,  and  fires." 

"  All  efforts  to  destroy  the  moths  have  been  useless." 

"  I  believe  one  of  these  plans  as  good  as  another  and  all  of  them  useless." 

"  Poison  as  ordinarily  used  is  of  little  value;  molasses  and  vinegar  is  less.  Fires, 
unless  used  by  all  planters,  decidedly  hurtful." 

"  I  know  nothing  of  poisoning,  as  it  has  never  been  tried  in  this  locality.  Fires 
have  been  tried,  but  without  effect.  One  man  in  this  neighborhood  tried  lamps  sur- 
rounded by  small  tin  plates  smeared  with  molasses.  If  he  ever  caught  any  I  never 
heard  of  it.  Many  people  went  to  see  the  result  of  his  experiments  but  nothing  came 
ofit." 

"  All  methods  of  alluring  the  moth  by  fires  or  sweetened  substances  have  proved 
futile.  Many  are  indeed  destroyed,  but  sufficient  remains  to  do  their  destructive 
work." 

"Some  experiments  made  with  fires  show  that  the  fires,  while  they  attract  the 
moths,  destroy  but  few,  and  fields  in  which  fires  have  been  kept  have  suffered  more 
than  those  adjacent  in  which  there  were  no  fires." 

The  two  most  successful  methods  of  destroying  the  moths  that  have 
been  used  are  the  placing  of  poisoned  solutions,  sweetened  to  attract 
the  moths,  about  the  cotton  fields,  and  the  lighting  of  fires  or  the-attract- 
ing  of  the  moths  to  lanterns  arranged  so  that  the  moths  may  fly  into 
the  blaze,  or  so  that  they  may  be  destroyed  in  different  ways,  either  by 
striking  the  glass  and  falling  into  a  sticky  mixture,  or  by  any  way  which 
the  invention  of  the  planter  may  have  prepared.  It  will  be  best  to  con- 
sider these  separately. 

(«.)  POISONED   SWEETS. 

We  have  already  shown  (Chap.  Ill)  how  the  moth  of  the  cotton-worm 
is  attracted  to  sweets  of  various  sorts,  as  the  nectar  of  various  plants, 
17  c  i 


258  REPORT   UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

ripe  aiid  decaying  fruits  of  different  sorts,  and  this  proclivity  very  natur- 
ally suggests  the  placing  of  poisoned  baits.  Years  ago  this  used  to  be 
practised  very  much  more  extensively  than  at  the  present  day.  Mr. 
Glover  long  recommended  this  remedy  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture 
Reports,  his  first  mention  of  it  being  a  detailed  account  of  the  phenome- 
nal success  of  Col.  B.  A.  Sorsby,  in  the  report  for  1855.  The  old  files 
of  the  Southern  agricultural  papers  contain  frequent  mention  of  the 
use  of  the  method.  One  of  the  most  remarkable  statements  was  con- 
tained in  the  Southern  Cultivator  (Vol.  VIII,  p.  132)  to  the  effect  that 
the  writer  had,  with  80  plates  of  poisoned  molasses  and  vinegar,  aver- 
aged 1,000  moths  a  night  throughout  the  season. 

The  answers  of  correspondents  to  question  la  of  the  1878  circular 
show  that  this  remedy  has  almost  entirely  fallen  into  disuse.  Some 
planters,  however,  still  believe  in  its  efficacy.  We  may  quote  the  fol- 
lowing : 

But  few  efforts  have  been  made  to  destroy  the  moths,  farmers  of  late  years  chiefly 
relying  on  poisoning  the  worms  ;  however,  the  idea  is  gaining  foothold  that  it  is  bet- 
ter to  try  and  destroy  the  moth  and  thereby  prevent  the  appearance  of  the  worm  in 
destructive  numbers.  The  best  mode  seems  to  be  to  set  up  lights  in  the  field  above  or 
in  front  of  some  sweet  adhesive  substance.  Moths  appear  to  be  attracted  by  all  sweet 
substances.  I  have  seen  them  attracted  by  thousands,  after  the  first  brood  had  web- 
bed up,  to  dried  peaches  that  were  dried  on  boards  in  the  sun,  and  had  been  covered 
up  at  night  with  boards,  the  moths  collecting  by  thousands  under  the  covering  of  the 
dried  peaches,  hundreds  being  killed  by  a  lamp  in  a  short  time.  A  mouse  made  a 
nest  with  the  dead  moths  the  same  night. — [  J.  H.  Krancher; 

Watermelons  cut  open  and  spread  around  with  arsenic  sprinkled  on  will  kill  the 
moth. 

I  used,  with  full  effect,  the  arsenite  of  soda  combined  with  a  little  vinegar  and  mo- 
lasses. I  did  not  use  any  intoxicating  liquids,  as  I  was  fully  satisfied  that  every  moth 
imbibing  the  poisoned  sweet  was  instantly  killed ;  none  of  the  dead  appearing  at 
any  appreciable  distance  from  the  pans. — [W.  J.  Jones. 

Little  or  no  effort  has  been  made.  My  opinion  is  that  something  should  be  done 
with  poisoned  molasses  and  fires  or  lamps.  A  few  nights  ago  I  placed  a  cup  three 
inches  in  diameter,  with  a  little  molasses  in  it,  a  distance  from  lights  and  cotton- 
plants,  and  found  six  moths  in  it  next  morning,  all  of  them  cotton-caterpillar  moths 
A  year  or  two  ago  I  divided  an  overripe  watermelon  and  placed  it  in  a  similar  posi- 
tion, and  by  eight  o'clock  at  night  there  were  50  or  75  moths  feeding  on  it. — [Jno. 
Bradford,  Leon  County;  Florida. 

The  following  testimony  is  from  Dr.  Anderson : 

As  an  instance  of  the  effect  of  light  and  its  fondness  for  sweets,  I  will  mention  what 
a  neighbor  told  me,  and  for  which,  to  a  great  extent,  I  had  ocular  demonstration. 
He  was  engaged  in  boiling  sirup  from  the  first  of  September  to  the  last  of  October. 
His  yard,  where  the  evaporating  pan  was,  opened  upon  a  field  of  60  or  80  acres  of 
cotton.  He  each  morning  found  his  pan  covered  with  moths,  and  from  first  to  last 
thought  he  had  emptied  out  one  bushel  of  moths.  Another  case  showing  strikingly 
the  effect  of  lights  and  sweets  was  told  me  by  a  highly  valued  Texas  correspondent. 
A  neighbor  of  his,  by  the  use  of  lights  and  poisoned  sweets.  h;id  made  1,000  bales  of 
cotton  on  1,000  acres,  while  his  neighbors  who  had  not  used  them  had  been  badly 
damaged. 

During  the  season  of  1878  experiments  were  made  by  Professor  Smith, 
.at  Tuscaloosa,  Ala.,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  season,  and  by  Professor 


EXPERIMENTS    IN    "SUGARING."  259 

Willet  and  myself  earlier.    Concerning  Professor  Smith's  results,  we 
quote  from  his  letters : 

October  10,  1878. — Since  writing  to  you  last  I  have  done  all  I  could  towards  observ- 
ing the  habits  of  the  moths,  experimenting  with  poisoned  sweets,  &c.  As  yet  I  have 
not  been  fortunate  in  getting  a  solution  by  which  the  moths  are  readily  killed.  I  have 
tried  corrosive  sublimate  and  arsenious  acid,  and  with  them  molasses  and  water  in 
various  proportions.  The  solutions  I  have  smeared  upon  pine  trees  standing  in  the 
field,  upon  little  shelves  set  up  at  places  in  the  field,  and  upon  a  dish  placed  upon  a, 
stump.  To  one  pine  tree  in  particular  the  moths  seemed  to  be  attracted  most  strongly. 
The  shelves  attracted  very  few  comparatively.  I  am  still  engaged  in  these  trials  with 
shallow  dishes  with  perforated  shelves,  according  to  your  suggestion,  and  I  shall  let 
you  know  if  I  find  out  anything. 

October  16. — Since  writing  you  last  I  have  continued  my  experiments  with  various 
poisoned  sweets ;  but,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  with  but  very  poor  success  so  far  as  killing 
the  moth  is  concerned.  I  have  used  for  poisons  arsenious  acid,  corrosive  sublimate, 
strychnia,  and  potassium  cyanide ;  these  I  have  mixed  in  varying  proportions  with 
rum  and  sweetened  water.  The  bait  appears  to  be  attractive  enough  and  I  see  the 
moths  partaking  of  it,  and  yet  no  dead  moths  are  visible  next  morning.  The  propor- 
tion of  rum  which  I  have  mixed  with  these  poisons  has  been  sometimes  one-half,  and 
from  that  down.  Of  the  poisons  named  above  the  potassium  cyanide  is  perhaps  most 
easily  soluble  in  the  liquids  used.  Smearing  the  sweetened  liquids  upon  the  trunks 
of  trees  is,  according  to  iny  experience,  the  best  way  of  exposing  them  ;  I  have  not 
seen  many  moths  around  the  dishes  set  up  on  shelves  and  on  stumps.  I  constructed 
a  shelf  against  a  pine  tree  and  upon  that  placed  a  dish  with  the  sweets,  and  provided 
with  a  floating  perforated  platform.  The  tree  was  at  the  same  time  smeared  with 
the  liquid,  and  upon  visiting  the  place  after  dark  I  noticed  a  number  of  moths  on  the 
tree,  on  the  smeared  shelf,  and  on  the  dish  with  the  platform,  those  on  the  dish 
being  much  less  numerous.  *  *  *  About  the  time  that  the  worms  were  moving  oft 
and  webbing  up,  very  few  moths  visited  the  sweets  at  night  for  several  nights,  but 
last  night  and  the  night  before  that  they  were  more  abundant.  Perhaps  the  cool 
weather  was  the  cause  of  their  being  absent  for  several  nights,  since  they  have  come 
in  numbers  again  after  the  warmer  nights  have  set  in. 

November  4,  1878. — I  send  by  to-day's  mail  a  few  specimens  of  the  moths  attracted 
by  my  baits.  No.  1  is,  I  presume,  Aletia  (Aletia  argillacea) ',  No.  2  isAgrotis  ypsilon, 
always  present  in  cold  as  well  as  warm  weather,  and  No.  3  (Lencania  unipuncta)  also ; 
No.  4  (Amplupyra,  sp.)  resembles  3  and  may  be  same  species ;  No.  5  ( Orthosia  ferruginoides) 
I  see  occasionally  on  warm  evenings;  No.  6  (Chrysis,  sp.)  I  found  to-day.  I  should 
be  very  glad  to  get  the  names  of  the  specimens  as  they  are  numbered.  I  inclose  a 
few  of  the  chrysalides  of  the  last  brood  of  worms. 

The  evening  of  October  26  was  warm  (66°  at  7  p.  m.),  and  more  than  50  cotton-moths 
were  counted  at  my  baited  tree.  It  rained  before  morning  and  then  cleared  oif  cold,  so 
that  on  the  27th  and  28th  no  moths  were  seen.  On  the  29th  it  was  warm  and  cloudy 
and  rained  slightly,  and  I  counted  7  or  8  Aletia  moths.  On  the  30th,  3 1st,  jlst,  and  2d 
cold  and  frosty  nights ;  no  moths  seen. 

Professor  Smith  continued  his  sugaring  all  through  the  winter,  cap- 
turing many  other  moths,  but  no  Aletia  later  than  December  1. 

The  observations  of  Professor  Willet  and  myself  were  reported  by 
Professor  Willet  as  follows  : 

"  Pea  dies.— Professor  Comstock  heard  in  Alabama  that  the  Aletia 
moths  had  greatly  injured  the  August  crop  of  peaches.  On  the  night  of 
September  10  Professor  Comstock  placed  two  peaches — clear-stoned  and 
quite  ripe — one  on  each  side  of  two  stumps  on  whose  sides  molasses  had 


260  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

been  smeared,  aiid  visited  them  at  9  p.  m.  We  (Professor  Comstock 
and  myself,  Professor  B.  having  left  for  Washington)  found  20  Aletia 
moths  on  one  peach  and  15  on  the  other,  notwithstanding  the  molasses. 
At  7  o'clock  next  morning  nearly  as  many  moths  were  at  the  peaches, 
though  the  sun  was  an  hour  high.  One  peach  had  a  hole  one-thirty- 
second  inch  in  diameter,  and  the  peach  had  been  eaten  out  underneath 
the  skin  to  a  depth  of  one-fourth  inch  and  a  diameter  of  1  inch.  The 
other  peach  had  5  holes,  not  so  large,  and  probably  50  excoriations  one- 
fourth  inch  in  diameter.  They  clustered  most  about  the  stem  end,  where 
they  could  thrust  in  their  bills  without  effort. 

"  September  12. — The  halves  of  the  same  peach,  opened,  were  placed  out 
last  night,  and  10  Aletia  and  1  other  moth  were  found  at  them  this  morn- 
ing. 

"  Some  dried  peaches  (with  skins  on)  having  been  soaked  in  water,  were 
placed  out  at  same  time,  but  no  moths  were  found  at  them.  After  re- 
turning here,  two  hard  peaches  were  put  in  a  jar  where  some  moths  had 
hatched  from  chrysalides ;  the  moths  were  almost  famished  and  immedi- 
ately clustered  over  the  peaches,  but  failed  to  make  any  impression  on 
them. 

POISONING  THE  MOTHS. 

"  1.  Molasses. — Mixed  Fowler's  solution  of  arsenic  with  common  molas- 
ses, 1  tablespoonful  to  1£  pints,  and  placed  some  in  tin  pan,  with  floating 
perforated  cover  of  tin,  as  suggested  by  Professor  Biley-  After  about 
two  hours  we  found  2  Aletia  and  2  other  moths  sipping  ;  next  morning 
probably  a  dozen  of  Aletia  and  other  moths  were  found  drowned  in  the 
molasses,  having  insinuated  down  by  the  sides  of  the  cover;  none  dead 
on  the  ground. 

"  Mixed  some  of  same  poisoned  molasses  with  sirups  of  strawberry, 
orange,  and  pine-apple,  and  with  rum,  vinegar,  and  lager  beer,  and 
smeared  on  trees  and  stumps  in  the  cotton  field  and  adjoining  forest. 
At  9  p.  m.  found  1  Aletia  and  2  other  moths  at  the  vinegar  and  2  Aletia 
at  the  beer;  at  7  next  morning  found  only  one  feeble  Aletia  at  the  beer. 
The  poison  did  not  seem  to  be  strong  enough. 

"  2.  Peaches. — September  12,  we  put  out  in  the  cotton  field,  in  large 
paper  boxes — 

a.  Peaches  (halves)  thickly  sprinkled  with  white  arsenic. 

b.  Peaches  (halves)  drenched  with  Fowler's  solution. 

c.  Dried  peaches  (soaked)  covered  with  white  arsenic. 

d.  Dried  peaches  (soaked)  with  Fowler's  solution. 
Visited  boxes  next  morning,  with  following  result: 

a.  Five  dead  Aletia,  2  disabled  Aletia. 

b.  Two  dead  Aletia,  1  dying  Aletia. 

c.  Two  Aletia  in  box  not  dead.    . 

d.  No  moths  of  any  kind. 

"As  peaches  seemed  so  attractive,  we  desired  to  have  tested  the  poisons 
further  with  peach  preserves  and  canned  peaches,  but  a  northeast  gale 


EXPERIMENTS    WITH   POISONED    SWEETS.  261 

prevailed  until  the  last  day  of  our  stay,  and  the  moths  had  then  almost 
entirely  disappeared. 

"  My  own  opinion  is  that  peaches,  in  some  form,  will  be  the  best  vehi- 
cle for  poison  for  the  moths." 

A  letter  from  Judge  Bailey,  of  Marion,  Ala.,  contains  the  following, 
bearing  on  this  point : 

One  farmer  informed  me  that  the  moths  utterly  destroyed  a  large  fig  crop  in  less  than 
a  week.  Another  informed  me  that  all  his  best  apples  were  punctured  and  sucked 
into  a  sort  of  honey-comb  work  by  the  cotton-miller.  A  physician  in  the  northwest 
part  of  the  country  assured  me  that  the  army-worm  sucked  his  grapes  dry  in  three 
nights.  I  know  the  moths  arc  strongly  attracted  by  cider  pomace  from  the  cider-mill. 
They  feed  upon  ripe  persimmons  with  great  avidity.  I  observed  them  arouud  a  tree 
of  this  kind  on  my  lot  as  late  as  the  21st  of  November  last.  While  they  were  feeding 
on  the  fruit  of  this  tree  I  make  some  efforts  to  poison  them,  but  with  poor  success.  I 
tried  several  poisons  handed  me  by  an  apothecary ;  only  one  had  any  effect.  It  was 
cobalt,  finely  powdered,  and  mixed  with  the  fruit  mashed  with  a  small  quantity  of 
honey.  The  flies  sought  the  bait  in  great  numbers,  but,  like  bees,  they  sucked  their 
fill  and  left ;  only  nine  were  found  dead  around  the  saucer  containing  the  poison. 

With  respect  to  observations  the  present  year,  the  following  from  Mr. 
Trelease's  report  will  give  the  results  at  which  he  arrived  : 

Since  the  perfect  form,  or  moth,  of  Alelia  is  known  to  feed  upon  sugared  substances 
and  fruits,  and  since  it  is  known  to  be  attracted  by  light  to  a  certain  extent,  it  has 
been  thought  possible  to  destroy  the  moth  by  allowing  it  to  feed  on  poisoned  sweets, 
or  by  employing  this  food  or  lights  to  attract  it  into  traps  of  various  sorts. 

As  will  be  seen  by  referring  to  my  report  on  the  food  of  these  moths,  they  are  at- 
tracted in  large  numbers  by  ripe  apples,  peaches,  and  grapes,  beside  one  or  two  other  less 
common  fruits ;  but  I  signally  failed  to  attract  them  in  numbers  to  my  mixtures  of  molas- 
ses or  sugar  and  various  substances.  Though  no  experiments  on  a  large  scale  were  con- 
ducted, I  feel  confident  that  poisoned  dishes  of  ripened  and  slightly  fermenting  fruits 
which  have  been  bruised  may  be  advantageously  employed  for  the  destruction  of  these 
moths,  by  placing  them  about  the  cotton  fields  when  the  moths  are  flying.  I  would 
recommend  that  this  be  tried,  especially  on  warm  days  in  winter,  when  the  moths 
are  allured  from  their  hibernacula,  in  the  early  spring,  and  in  the  fall,  after  the  brood 
which  destroys  the  cotton  have  emerged  as  moths. 

From  all  observations  it  seems  probable  that  a  preparation  of  over- 
ripe fruit — peaches,  melons,  mashed  .apples,  or  persimmons — will  be 
superior  to  any  other  sweet  mixture  for  the  purpose  of  attracting  the 
moths,  although,  as  shown  by  Professor  Smith,  one-half  each  of  rum 
and  molasses  and  water,  when  smeared  upon  the  trunks  of  trees,  has 
proved  attractive. 

Actual  results  with  poisons  have  proved  rather  unsuccessful,  but  this 
may  be  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  moths  fly  away  to  die.  As  regards 
the  best  poison,  Judge  Jones  seems  to  have  had  excellent  success  with 
arsenite  of  soda,  while  Judge  Bailey  considers  the  so-called  "cobalt"* 
the  best  thing  that  he  tried.  It  is  also  called  "  blue-stone"  or  "  fly-stone," 
arid  is  customarily  used  in  fly-poisons. 

And  now,  as  regards  the  advisability  of  an  extensive  use  of  poisoned 

*The  ordinary  cobalt  of  druggists  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  impure  metallic 
arsenic,  costing  from  6  to  15  cents  per  pound.  Called  cobalt  on  account  of  former  laws 
against  the  selling  of  arsenic  in  England. 


262 


EEPORT   UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


sweets,  it  is  a  question  for  every  planter  to  decide  for  himself  from  the 
evidence  laid  down. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  it  would  be  an  excellent  plan  to  try  it 
in  those  regions  where  hibernation  is  suspected  on  the  spots  where  the 
worms  first  appear.  The  sweets  should  be  put  out  in  these  places  in  early 
spring  and  also  in  late  fall.  The  importance  of  the  latter  is  evinced 
from  the  fact  of  Professor  Smith's  success  in  October.  There  can  cer- 
tainly be  no  doubt  but  that  every  moth  killed  saves  the  planter  from 
a  great  many  worms,  but  the  hibernating  moths  are,  of  course,  of  im- 
mensely greater  importance  than  those  of  any  of  the  succeeding  broods. 
Concerning  the  later  broods,  the  cost  of  poisoning  must  be  set  against 
the  numbers  of  moths  killed,  and  each  planter  must  decide  for  himself 
whether  it  will  pay  him  to  continue. 

In  I860  J.  M.  Heard  patented  a  moth-trap,  which  has  been  quite  ex- 
tensively used  1  hroughout  the 
South.  It  consists  simply  of 
a  broad,  shallow  pan,  which  is 
filled  with  the  attracting  mix- 
ture, and  a  broader  cover  to 
protect  it  from  the  sun  and 
rain.  The  figure  represents  a 
vertical  section. 
FIG.  64.-Heaid'8  moth-trap.  As  bait  Mr.  Heard  recom- 

mends  the  use  of  molasses  mixed  with  a  little  anise,  fennel,  or  other 
essential  oil.  "  The  oil,"  he  says,  "  should  be  put  in  as  much  alcohol  as 
will  dissolve  it,  and  added  to  the  molasses  in  the  proportion  of  one-half 
ounce  of  the  oil  to  the  gallon  of  molasses."  They  will  need  to  be  cleaned 
out  and  replenished  once  a  Aveek. 

FIRES,  TRAP-LANTERNS,  ETC. 

For  many  years  the  practice  of  building  large  fires  at  different  points 
through  the  cotton  fields  for  the  purpose  of  attracting  the  moths  into 
the  flame  was  prevalent.  The  use  of  such  fires  was,  however,  discour- 
aged by  a  class  of  planters,  whose  opinions  were  thus  expressed  by  a 
writer  in  De  Bow's  Review: 

I  liavn  tried  this  remedy,  and  have  remained  in  my  cotton  field  after  dark  to  watch 
the  effects  of  the.  fire  on  these  flies.  I  did  not  see  as  many  destroyed  as  I  expected 
when  I  took  into  consideration  the  quantity  I  knew  to  be  in  the  field.  The  most  of 
those  I  saw  approaching  the  fire  seemed  to  be  repelled  or  diverged  oft'  on  Hearing  it, 
or  they  would  rebound  high  above  it  and  escape  destruction.  On  seeing  this  I  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  heat  of  the  large  fires  extended  too  far  around,  and  that 
they  felt  it,  and  turned-off'  before  being  near  enough  to  be  destroyed. 

As  a  result  of  this  belief  and  of  the  evident  fact  that,  unless  gener- 
ally practiced,  a  fire  upon  one  plantation  would  serve  only  to  attract 
moths  from  neighboring  plantations,  concentrating  them  upon  one  crop, 
the  custom  has  fallen  into  disuse. 


EXPERIENCE    WITH    TRAP-LANTERNS.  263 

The  first  of  these  objections  caniiot  be  urged,  however,  against  the 
use  of  trap-lanterns.  As  a  good  instance  of  the  success  of  these  last, 
\ve  quote  the  following  from  the  monthly  reports  of  this  department  for 
1867: 

Parish  of  Jefferson,  Louisiana. — Allow  me  to  call  your  attention  to  the  destruction,  of 
the  cotton  crop  by  the  -worms,  which  appear  to  increase  yearly.  In  1864  I  planted 
about  100  acres  in  cotton.  In  July  the  worms  made  their  appearance.  Having  no 
experience  in  raising  this  crop,  I  searched  in  the  agricultural  reports  for  information. 
Mr.  Glover  recommended  the  burning  of  trap-lanterns,  and  I  made  three  of  them 
\vith  a  coal-oil  lamp  and  tin  basin,  with  soapsuds  underneath,  and  burned  them  every 
night.  The  first  night  I  caught  about  75  millers  and  innumerable  other  insects.  The 
number  increased  to  300  millers,  and  then  gradually  diminished  to  none.  For  three 
weeks  after  the  crops  of  my  neighbors  were  destroyed,  I  found  only  a  few  of  my  plants 
attacked ;  about  the  last  week  of  the  three  I  caught  no  millers,  but  all  at  once  the 
catch  was  75 ;  next  night  150,  then  300,  and  even  up  to  500.  The  worm,  however, 
gradually  made  its  appearance  more  and  more,  until,  in  the  middle  of  August,  my 
cotton  was  stripped  of  every  leaf  and  bloom.  The  worm  then  turned  into  pupa.  In 
ten  days  after  this  the  miller  again  appeared.  Meanwhile  the  cotton  had  sprouted 
again  and  was  in  full  bloom,  when  the  third  brood  made  its  appearance  in  immense 
numbers.  In  three  days  every  leaf  and  young  boll  was  eaten,  and  the  worm  was 
eating  the  bark  of  the  plant  and  the  glazed  protection  of  the  nearly  matured  bolls. 
The  heavy  rains  of  September  soaked  into  the  bolls  and  rotted  them.  I  made  only  3 
bales  of  cotton.  In  July  the  prospect  was  good  for  at  least  75  bales. 

My  opinion  is  that  if  every  planter  would  commence  burning  a  lantern  in  each  five 
acres,  from  the  latter  part  of  June  to  the  middle  of  September,  for  a  few  years  in  suc- 
cession, both  the  boll- worm  and  the  cotton-worm  would  be  destroyed.  The  boll-worm 
destroys  about  one-half  the  crop  with  us.  This  year  none  of  my  neighbors  raise  cot- 
cotton.  I  have  planted  about  five  acres,  and  shall  burn  one  lamp,  and  inform  the  de- 
partment of  the  result.  Cost  of  lantern  and  basin  about  $1.50,  and  the  oil  will  not 
cost  over  $1,  so  that  if  the  increase  is  only  10  pounds  to  the  acre  it  will  more  than 
pay  the  expense.  The  first  night  I  used  the  lantern  on  a  barrel,  but  the  insects  were 
alive  in  the  morning,  and  it  was  considerable  trouble  to  kill  them.  Afterwards  I  used 
the  soapsuds,  as  it  killed  all  the  insects  fit  once. 

The  following  extract  from  a  letter  of  Mr.  E.  A.  Schwarz  possesses 
interest  in  this  connection  : 

Col.  C.  Lewis,  of  Hearne,  Tex.,  after  experimenting  for  a  long  time  with  more  or 
less  complicated  contrivances  to  attract  by  light,  and  at  the  same  time  to  kill  the  cot- 
ton-moth, concluded  finally  that  the  following  simple  apparatus  is  the  most  effective 
and  cheapest.  As  now  in  use,  this  apparatus  consists  of  three  pieces  :  1st,  a  shallow 
tin  pan  (16  by  10  inches)  ;  2d,  a  common  kerosene-lamp,  with  a  half-inch  wick,  and 
large  enough  to  burn  the  whole  night ;  3d,  a  common  lantern,  open  below,  which  is 
put  over  the  lamp  to  protect  it  from  wind  and  rain.  The  lamp  is  put  in  the  middle  of 
the  pan  and  prevented  from  sliding  by  three  pieces  of  tin  fastened  on  the  bottom  of 
the  pan.  This  apparatus  is  put  on  top  of  a  post,  about  6  feet  high,  in  the  field.  Before 
dark  the  lamps  are  made  ready,  the  pans  about  half  filled  with  water,  and  about  one 
tablespoonful  of  kerosene  is  put  on  the  water. 

To  put  this  kerosene  on  the  water  is  the  most  important  part,  and  the  colonel  experi- 
mented with  all  sorts  of  chemicals — alcohol,  camphor,  iodine,  &c. — without  finding 
anything  which  would  kill  the  moths,  which,  attracted  by  the  light  of  the  lamp,  fly 
against  the  lantern  and  fall  finally  into  the  water.  Kerosene  alone  proved  most  effec- 
tive in  killing  these  tooths.  The  lamps  are  left  burning  in  dark  nights  the  whole  night 
over,  but  are,  of  course,  of  but  little  use  at  full  moon.  In  the  morning  the  pans  are 
emptied  and  the  lamps  extinguished.  Colonel  Lewis  believes  that  one  lamp  for  each 


264  REPORT   UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

5  acres  is  sufficient.  One  man  can  attend  to  500  acres.  The  cost  of  a  lamp  (which  is 
manufactured  by  H.  K.  Davis  &  Co.,  Hearne,  Tex.)  is  50  cents,  but  will  last,  of  course, 
for  many  years.  The  cost  of  burning  one  lamp  and  labor  amounts  to  35  cents  per 
month.  Colonel  Lewis  put  his  lamps  out  last  year  the  20th  or  25th  of  June,  and  had 
them  in  use  about  six  weeks,  with  interruptions  caused  by  clear  moonlight  nights. 
Almost  all  the  largo  farmers  used  these  lanterns  last  year,  and  it  is  estimated  that  in 
the  bottom-lands  near  Hearne  more  than  1,000  lanterns  were  out  in  1878,  which  is 
the  first  year  in  which  this  method  of  killing  the  millers  has  been  tried  on  a  large" 
scale,  and  it  is  not  possible  to  say  anything  that  is  definite  regarding  its  value.  There 
has  been  last  year  no  poisoning  of  the  worms  carried  on  whatever  in  this  section, 
notwithstanding  the  crop  was  a  fair  one — about  one  bale  per  acre. 

Myriads  of  the  cotton-moths  have  been  killed,  of  course,  by  this  method,  and  it  ap- 
pears certain  that  it  proved  most  effectual  against  the  ravage  of  the  boll-worm,  which 
in  1877  did  more  harm  here  than  Aletia  (the  cotton  crop  in  1877  was  here  a  perfect 
failure,  owing  to  the  combined  ravages  of  Aletia  and  Heliothis),  and  which  was  killed 
in  great  numbers  by  this  method.  Before  the  introduction  of  the  method  just  des- 
cribed, the  large  planters  in  the  bottom-lands  tried  to  poison  the  worms,  but  with  lit- 
tle success. 

The  method  described  above  to  destroy  the  cotton-moth  is,  in  my  opinion,  superior 
to  all  similar  methods  and  to  all  applications  of  poisons ;  but  the  lanterns  ought  to  be 
lighted  up  at  the  beginning  of  May,  if  not  earlier,  and  not  toward  the  end  of  June. 

The  following  extract  from  Mr.  Trelease's  report  give  the  results  of  his 
observations  upon  this  point : 

From  what  has  been  said  in  the  earlier  agricultural  reports,  and  from  the  testimony 
of  planters  as  to  the  attraction  of  light  for  these  moths,  I  had  supposed  that  the  easiest 
and  most  scientific  method  of  destroying  Aletia  was  to  employ  fires  into  which  they 
should  be  attracted,  or  lights  in  combination  with  some  form  of  trap,  either  with  or 
without  the  added  attraction  of  food ;  these  to  be  used  whenever  the  moths  were  fly- 
iug,  and  their  use  enforced,  if  necessary,  by  legislation.  Considering,  for  the  above 
reasons,  that  the  fondness  of  these  moths  for  light  was  proved,  I  made  no  efforts  to  ob- 
tain personal  demonstration  of  the  fact ;  and  it  was  only  on  learning  how  many  species 
of  moths  and  even  of  other  insects  may  pass  for  Aletia  with  the  ordinary  observer,  and 
on  seeing  from  my  notes  how  little  attention  was  paid  to  the  light  of  my  lantern,  that 
I  began  to  doubt  the  efficacy  of  this  remedy  ;  but  this,  unfortunately,  was  after  I  had 
left  the  field.  As  it  is,  I  can  only  say  that  the  number  attracted  to  lights,  as  compared 
with  the  entire  number,  was  very  small,  so  far  as  my  experience  goes.  Though  I  saw 
a  few  dozen  attracted  into  the  house,  thousands  were  within  sight  of  the  light  and 
removed  but  a  few  rods;  while  for  each  of  those  thus  attracted  a  dozen  individuals 
belonging  to  other  species  came  to  the  light.  My  own  observation,  then,  goes  to  show 
that  these  moths  are  not  attracted  to  any  great  extent  by  lights  ;  but  if  this  attraction 
should  be  proven  to  be  considerable,  this  would  prove  one  of  the  best  ways  of  dealing 
with  the  pest. 

On  the  whole,  the  conclusion  at  which  we  arrived  in  regard  to  the 
use  of  the  lanterns  is  much  the  same  as  that  which  we  have  stated  of 
poisoned  sweets.  Early  in  the  spring  and  late  in  the  fall  they  should 
be  tried.  Their  use  in  the  months  between  June  and  October  will  de- 
pend upon  how  efficacious  other  remedies  have  been,  and  upon  the 
actual  success  of  the  trap  used.  In  the  seasons  mentioned  first  the 
planter  must  not  be  discouraged  at  the  small  proportion  of  cotton- 
moths  to  other  moths,  remembering  the  fact,  which  we  have  so  often 
reiterated,  of  the  immense  economic  importance  of  every  hibernating 


TRAP-LANTERN    OF    B.    F.    M  QUEEN. 


265 


individual.  It  is  well,  also,  to  bear  in  mind  that  almost  without  excep- 
tion the  other  moths  which  are  thus  captured  are  more  or  less  injurious 
to  vegetation. 

We  will  here  illustrate  some  of  the  more  practical  moth-trap  lanterns 
which  have  been  patented. 

There  have  been  a  large  number  of  moth-traps  patented,  which  are 
made  upon  the  plan  of  placing 
a  light  above  a  pan  containing 
fluid,  which  may  be  either  viscid 
or  poisoned.  The  moths  at- 
tracted by  the  light  fall  into  the 
pan,  and  are  thus  destroyed. 

The  following  figures  and  de- 
scriptions illustrate  a  number 
of  the  more  simply  constructed 
and  more  practical  of  these  in- 
ventions. 

The  patent  of  B.  F.  McQueen, 
No.  166, 124,  July  27, 1875,  con- 
sists of  a  lantern,  pan,  and  re- 
flector : 

A  represents  an  ordinary  lantern, 
constructed  in  any  of  the  known  and 
usual  ways.  Around  the  base  of  this 
lantern  is  attached  a  shallow  basin, 
B,  of  any  suitable  dimensions — say, 
for  instance,  thirteen  inches  in  diam- 
eter and  two  inches  deep.  Immedi- 
ately below  this  basin,  and  attached 
to  it,  is  a  tube,  C,  of  proper  dimen- 
sions, to  facilitate  the  using  of  the 
lantern  in  the  field,  by  being  placed 
on  the  post  or  stake.  At  the  top  of 
the  lantern  is  a  horizontal  screen,  D, 
of  tin,  forming  a  reflector  to  economize 
the  light  by  throwing  it  outward. 
Another  and  important  object  and  effect  of  this  reflector  is  to  precipitate  the  insects 
into  the  pan  below.  Many  of  the  insects  will  flutter,  and  ascend  the  sides  of  the 
lamp  with  considerable  rapidity,  thus  coming  in  contact  with  the  reflector  and 
causing  them  to  fall  into  the  pan,  which  contains  water,  sirup,  or  some  other  suit- 
able liquid  for  destroying  them. 

The  advantage  claimed  for  this  invention  is  that  the  light  is  equally 
diffused  in  all  directions,  thus  alluring  more  insects  than  it  would  were 
the  light  partially  obstructed. 

Fig.  66  is  a  representation  of  the  invention  of  Mr.  James  G.  G. 
Garrett,  of  Port  Gibson,  Miss.,  No.  133,023,  November  12,1872.  In  his 
letters  patent  Mr.  Garrett  says  : 

This  invention  relates  to  that  class  of  devices  for  destroying  or  catching  nocturnal 
insects  which  consist  essentially  of  a  dish  or  pan  containing  molasses  or  other  sticky 
substance  and  a  lamp,  the  light  of  which  decoys  the  insects  into  the  pan.  All  such 


FIG.  65. — B.  F.  McQueen's  trap-lantern. 


266 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


traps  now  in  use  are  provided  with  bails  or  similar  contrivances  for  the  purpose  of 
suspending  them  where  wanted.  They  are  thus  subject  to  be  oscillated  or  even  over- 
turned by  the  wind,  causing  the  spilling 
of  the  substance  in  the  pan — essential 
to  the  proper  operation  of  the  trap — 
and  often,  also,  the  extinguishment  of 
the  lamp  or  lantern.  Suspending  such  a 
trap  in  fruit-trees  is  not  so  objection- 
able, because  it  is  protected  by  the  foli- 
age against  violent  oscillations;  but 
when  used  in  open  fields  of  growing 
crops,  such  as  cotton,  tobacco,  &c.,  it 
becomes  a  very  serious  drawback,  to 
remedy  which  is  the  object  of  my  inven- 
tion. To  this  end  my  improvement  con- 
sists in  rigidly  securing  the  pan  and  its 
lamp  or  lantern  to  a  stake  of  proper 
length,  providing  a 'device,  complete  in 
itself,  especially  adapted  for  use  in  open 
fields  of  growing  crops,  and  not  liable 
to  serious  interference  from  high  winds. 

The  figure  is  a  side  view,  partly  in 
section. 

A  is  a  stake  driven  into  the  ground, 
and  to  the  upper  end  of  which  is  nailed 
or  otherwise  securely  attached  a  board 
or  plank,  B,  which  should  be  about 
eighteen  inches,  more  or  less,  across. 
Upon  the  plank  B  is  placed  a  sheet-iron 
pan,  C,  about  eighteeu  inches  across  and 
two  inches  deep.  In  the  center  of  the 
pan  C  is  placed  a  block  or  support,  D, 
about  two  inches  high,  upon  which  is 
set  an  ordinary  lantern,  E.  The  lantern 
E  is  secured  in  place  by  being  connected 
with  the  edges  of  the  plank  B  by  two  or 
more  cords,  F. 

This  device  is  set  among  the  plants 

FIG.  66.-J.  G.  G.  Garrett's  trap-lantern.     to  be  Protected>  is  "g^toxl  about  dark, 

and  enough  coal-tar,  molasses,  or  other 

suitable  viscous  material  is  poured  into  the  pan  C  to  a  little  more  than  cover  its  bot- 
tom. The  insects  will  be  attracted  by  the  light,  and  flying  toward  it,  will  fall  into  the 
pan  C,  and  being  unable  to  escape  from  it  will  be  destroyed.  One  or  more  of  these 
devices  should  be  used  for  each  acre  of  the  field  to  be  protected. 

Another  lamp  aud  pan  apparatus  was  invented  and  patented  by 
Jesse  B.  Duke,  of  Norristown,  Ark.  It  consists  of  a  pan  of  sheet-metal, 
having  a  tube  or  socket  rising  from  the  center  of  the  bottom,  which  sup- 
ports a  lamp  projecting  above  the  top  of  the  pan;  the  lamp  having  in- 
clined sides  and  a  very  narrow  or  sharp  top. 

In  the  following  cut,  1  is  a  perspective  view  of  the  invention,  and  2  is  a 
side  elevation,  partly  in  section. 

A  is  a  sheet-metal  pan,  and  B  is  a  tube  or  socket  rising  from  the  center  of  the  bot- 
tom thereof.  This  tube  or  socket  is  soldered  water-tight  around  a  hole  in  the  bottom 


TRAP -LANTERNS    OF    J.    R.    DUKE    AND    J.    R.    STEPHENS.      267 


of  the  pan.  C  is  a  lamp,  having  a  cross-section  of  the  shape  of  an  isosceles  triangle 
with  a  narrow  base  which  gives  the  sides  of  the  lamp  a  steep  slope.  E  are  burners, 
and  d  and  e  are  reflectors.  F  is  the  stake  upon 
which  the  apparatus  is  placed  Avhen  in  use, 
said  stake  fitting  through  the  hole  in  the 


FIG.  67.— Lamp  and  pan  apparatus  of  J.  R.  Duke. 

bottom  of  the  pan  and  into  socket  B.     There  is  a  socket  in  the  center  of  the  lamp 
also,  and  into  this  fits  the  socket  B.    The  lamp  may  be  removed  for  filling  or  cleansing. 

To  use  the  invention  the 
stake  should  be  driven  in  the 
ground,  the  apparatus  placed 
upon  it.  At  night  the  burn- 
ers of  the  lamp  being  lighted 
will  attract  the  moths,  which, 
being  scorched  in  the  flame, 
will  fall  upon  the  steeply  in- 
clined sides  of  the  lamp  and 
slide  oft'  into  the  fluid  in  the 
pan.  —  [  Patent  No.  193643, 
dated  July  31,  1877.] 

The  following  is  the  in- 
vention of  Mr.  John  E., 
Stephens,  of  Lone  Star, 
Miss.  It  consists  in  con- 
structing a  vessel  of  suit- 
able material  for  holding 


a  strong  alkaline  solution 
of  lime  or  lye.     This  ves- 


FIG.  68.— Trap-lantern  of  J.  R.  Stephens. 
A  is  a  circular  vessel  with  the  bottom  a,  to  the  cen- 
ter of  which  is  fastened  the  lamp  B.     g  g  are  the  two 
SCl  Should  be  made  Circu-    eye8j  fastened  to  the  riin  of  the  vessel  A,  and  serve  as 
lar,  ill  the  form  of  a  bowl,    holders  for  the  handle   H  and  the  ring  K,  by  which 
The  depth  of  this   vessel   tne  moth-trap*  is  suspended.     [Patent  No.    186434, 
depends  upon  the  height   dated  January  31,  1867.] 
of  a  lamp  which  is  fastened  to  the  center  of  the  bottom  of  the  vessel. 

*  Mr.  Stepheus's  patent  has  also  the  standards  &  &  to  support  the  ring  D,  which  is 
attached  to  the  vessel  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  the  portable  shade  E,  to  be  used 
when  the  trap  is  employed  for  catching  the  bee-moth,  for  the  purpose  of  not  disturbing 
the  bees. 


268 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


To  the  rim  of  the  vessel  are  fastened  two  eyes,  one  opposite  the  other, 
serving  to  hold  a  handle  and  a  ring,  by  which  the  trap  is  suspended 
when  in  use. 

It  will  be  readily  understood  that  the  moths,  insects,  flies,  &c.,  are 
attracted  by  the  light  to  the  trap,  and  will  drop  into  the  alkaline  solu- 
tion of  lime  or  lye,  where  they  are  killed. 

This  alkaline  solution  of  lime  or  lye  is  filled  into  the  vessel  and  kept 
nearly  up  to  the  lamp-wick  regulator. 

Mr.  Richard  Pitman,  of  West  Point,  Iowa,  has  patented  a  moth-trap 
which  consists  simply  of  a  lantern  constructed  with  open  sides,  through 
which  the  insects  are  enticed  by  the  flames,  and  either  die  by  scorch- 
ing or  through  the  means  of  poisoned  fluid  which  surrounds  the  base  of 
the  lamp. 


FIG.  69.—  Trap-lantern  of  R.  Pitman. 

1  is  a  perspective  view  of  the  trap ;  2  is  a  central  vertical  section  of 
the  same. 

The  trap  is  constructed  of  a  frame,  A,  similar  to  that  used  ordinarily  in  ll:it->idt-d 
lanterns,  and  in  substantially  the  same  manner,  and  may  l»r  square  or  otherwise  poly- 
gonal in  form.  In  the  slides,  wherein  glasses  are  usually  inserted,  are  placed  slides 
constructed  of  stationary  slats,  a  (which  should  be  made  of  tin  or  other  bright  metal), 
placed  horizontally  parallel  to  each  other,  at  a  downward  inclination  of  about  fifty 
degrees,  so  that  the  lower  edge  of  each  slat  a  shall  fall  below  a  horizontal  plane  ex- 


C.    R.    DUDLEY  S    LANTERN. 


269 


tended  from  the  upper  edge  of  the  next  slat  below,  and  thus  break  the  course  of  a 

direct  current  of  air,  and  protect  the  light  from  extinguishment  tbereby.     Sufficient 

space  is  left  between  each  slat  to  admit  the  ready 

passage  into  the  trap  of  moths  and  other  insects 

alighting  thereon,  while  the  outward  inclination 

of   the  slats  presents  an  obstruction  to  their 

egress. 

The  trap  so  constructed  may  be  used  as  an  or- 
dinary lantern  during  the  winter  season  by  sub- 
stituting glass  slides  for  the  open  slats.  The 
reflection  of  light  from  the  bright  surface  of  the 
slats  presents  greater  attraction  to  the  insects 
than  a  simple  light.  The  back  part  or  one  of  the 
sides  of  the  lantern  may  be  left  closed  or  solid, 
as  shown  in  figure  2  of  the  drawings,  to  afford 
protection  to  the  light  from  wind  coming  from 
any  given  quarter.  [Patent  No.  62563,  dated 
March  5,  18fi7.] 

Mr.  Charles  E.  Dudley,  of  Canton, 
Miss.,  has  invented  a  rather  novel  moth- 
trap,  which,  in  addition  to  lamp  and  pan, 
has  a  vane  so  constructed  as  to  keep  the 
light  always  sheltered  from  the  wind. 

1  is  a  sectional  view  of  the  invention ; 
2  is  a  perspective  view  of  the  same. 

A  is  a  conical  chamber;  B,  a  partition- 
wall  that  supports  the 
reflector  C  behind  the 
lamp  D.  E  is  a  vat  sur- 
rounding the  lamp  D.  F 
is  a  wind-feather  that 
shifts  the  whole  struc- 
ture as  a  weather-vane, 
so  that  the  lamp  D  will 
always  be  shielded  from 
the  wind.  In  turning  it 
moves  on  a  pivot,  G,  at 
the  top  of  a  pole,  H,  the 
pole  passing  into  the 
socket  I,  which  fits  it 
loosely.  *  is  metal,  glass, 
or  other  substance, 
which  prevents  the 
weight  of  the  machine  from  causing  the  point  G  to  pierce  the  bottom 
of  chamber  A  in  using  it. 

The  lamp  D,  for  coal-oil  or  other  burning  fluid,  is  provided  with  a 
wick-tube  so  as  to  throw  a  bright  flame  in  front  of  the  reflector  C.  This 
attracts  the  moths,  which  are  destroyed  by  falling  into  the  vat  E  of 
sweetened  vinegar,  tincture  of  valerian,  and  tincture  of  myrrh,  or  other 


FIG.  70.— C.  R.  Dudley's  lantern. 


270 


REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 


attractive  substance.  This  structure  is  mounted  on  a  pole  sufficiently 
high  to  reach  above  to  tops  of  the  cotton-plants,  and  is  so  sensitively 
poised  on  a  pivot,  G,  as  to  turn  with  the  slightest  pressure  of  the  wind 
against  the  wind-feather  F.  The  wind-shield  J  stops  the  current  about 
the  light,  so  that  it  will  burn  always  with  a  bright  flame. 

The  lamp  and  the  reflector  are  both  removable  for  the  purpose  of  fill- 
ing with  oil  or  of  cleaning. — [Patent  134130,  dated  December  24,  1872. 

Fig.  71  represents  a  vertical 
longitudinal  section  of  the  in- 
vention of  Mr.  George  C.  Cran- 
ston, of  South  Bend,  Ind. 

A  represents  a  circular  tin 
vessel,  the  sides  of  which  may 
be  one  or  more  inches  in  height. 
B  is  a  receptacle  for  the  oil, 
or  such  other  material  as  may 
be  used  for  giving  light. 

This  receptacle  is  furnished 
with  wick-tube  C,  which  may  be 
divided  in  several  wick-cham- 
bers, for  the  purpose  of  diffus- 
ing as  much  light  as  possible 
when  the  device  is  in  actual  use. 
b  b  represent  two  pieces  of 
metal,  bent  at  right  angles,  and  secured  to  the  bottom  of  vessel  A,  at 
or  near  its  center,  so  as  to  form  a  recess,  or  groove,  as  shown  in  the 
drawing. 

The  lower  portion,  or  foot  of  lamp,  or  receptacle  B,  is  provided  with 
projecting  sides,  or  flanges,  and  so  arranged  as  to  slide  in  grooves  just 
mentioned. 

The  vessel  A  is  supplied  with  a  suitable  bail,  D,  by  which  it  is  sus- 
pended in  the  branch  of  a  tree,— [Patent  No.  88140,  dated  March  23, 
18G9. 

Fig.  72  shows  the  device  of  Mr.  Edward  D.  Pugh,  of  Fort  Plaine, 
Iowa. 

A  A  represent  a  shallow  sheet-metal  pan,  which  may  vary  in  form 
and  size  to  correspond  with  the  form  and  size  of  the  case.  It  must, 
however,  always  be  larger  than  the  case  and  extend  outside  and  beyond 
the  case  which  is  placed  therein.  B  B  B  is  the  glass  and  sheet-metal 
case.  It  may  vary  in  form  and  size,  as  desired.  The  bottom  is  sheet 
metal,  and  has  a  number  of  perforations  or  holes  punched  in  to  venti- 
late. It  has  short  feet  attached  on  the  under  side  and  near  the  corners 
to  keep  it  above  the  liquid  placed  in  the  pan.  The  frame  is  made  of 
sheet  metal  and  in  the  form  of  a  sash,  so  as  readily  to  receive  and  hold 
the  panes  of  glass,  a  a  represents  part  of  the  frame,  near  the  middle  of 
its  elevation  and  extending  entirely  around  the  case,  with  tubes  attached 


FIG.  71.— G.  C.  Cranston's  lantern. 


E.    D.    PUGHS    LANTERN. 


271 


on  the  inside  and  apertures  communicating  with  the  outside.  &  &  are 
the  tubes  attached  on  the  inside.  These  are  usually  about  one-half  inch 
in  diameter,  made  of  metal,  and  may  vary  in  diameter  and  length  to  suit 
the  bottles  to  be  placed  upon  them.  The  number  of  tubes  and  bottles 
used  may  vary  from  one  to  twenty  or  more.  The  dotted  lines  indicate 
how  a  second  tier  of  tubes  and  bottles  may  be  introduced.  C  is  a  sheet- 
metal  cover  corresponding  in  form  and  size  with  the  case,  and  can  be 
readily  lifted  off  and  on.  It  has  a  chimney  or  opening  in  the  top 
and  center  to  allow  the  smoke  and  heat  of  the  lamp  to  escape.  It  is 
held  in  place  by  means  of  hooks  or  other  suitable  catches.  The  top  may 
be  fixed  and  stationary,  and  one  of  the  sides  of  the  case,  or  a  section 
thereof,  may  be  hinged  so  as  to  admit  the  bottles  and  lamp ;  but,  for 


FIG.  72.— E.  D.  Pugk's  lantern. 

economy  in  construction  and  convenience  in  use,  it  is  preferable  to  make 
the  top  in  the  form  of  a  movable  or  hinged  cover.  D  is  a  portable 
lamp,  that  is  lighted  and  placed  in  the  case  to  operate  the  trap.  Any 
suitable  form  of  lamp  or  candlestick  may  be  used  to  provide  the  light 
that  is  required.  E  represents  a  long-necked  common  bottle  placed  on 
one  of  the  tubes  6  on  the  inside  of  the  case.  These  bottles  may  vary  in 
form  and  size  and  number,  as  desired. 

To  operate  the  trap,  put  honey  and  wax  or  other  suitable  bait  into  the 
bottles  and  then  place  the  bottles  on  the  tubes  &  on  the  inside  of  the 
case.  Set  the  case  in  the  center  of  the  pan  A  A  and  partly  fill  the  pan 
with  soapsuds  or  some  other  liquid  that  will  destroy  insects  that  fall  into 
it.  Place  the  lighted  lamp-  or  its  equivalent  in  the  case  and  set  the  trap 
wherever  desired.  The  moth  and  other  insects  will  be  attracted  by  the 
light  and  fly  against  the  glass.  Many  will  fall  into  the  liquid  in  the  pan 
and  perish.  Those  that  alight  safely  on  the  sides  of  the  case  will  be 
attracted  by  the  bait  in  the  bottles  and  will  pass  through  the  apertures 


272 


REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 


and  tubes  and  into  the  bottles,  where  they  will  remain  until  removed 
and  destroyed.— [Patent  No.  130390,  dated  August  13,  1872.] 

Mr.  Thomas  Byrne,  of  New  York  City,  and  Mr.  Deidrich  Strunk,  of 
Lavaca,  Tex.,  have  invented  a  trap  so  arranged  that  the  light  is  strongly 

reflected  in  the  liquid,  hoping  by  this 
device  to  attract  and  destroy  a  greater 
number  of  moths. 

A  represents  an  open  vessel,  which  is 
adapted  for  containing  carbolic  acid, 
coal-tar,  or  any  other  liquid  which  will 
destroy  insects. 

Within  this  vessel  and  centrally  ar- 
ranged is  a  lamp,  B,  which  is  secured 
fast  to  the  bottom  of  the  vessel,  and  con- 
structed with  a  rim  on  its  top  for  receiv- 
ing and  keeping  in  place  a  chimney,  C. 
The  chimney,  which  is  of  glass  or  other 
transparent  material,  consists  of  a  con- 
tracted tubular  portion,  rf,  a  contracted 
FIG.  73.— Byrne  &  Strunk's  trap-Ian-  base  portion,  «,  and  two  conical  portions, 

6  c,  united  at  their  bases. 

Upon  this  chimney  is  a  funnel-shaped  chimney,  D,  consisting  of  a 
downwardly-flaring  portion,  e,  a  tubular  portion,/,  and  a  cap  or  hood,  g. 
This  chimney  D  is  made  of  metal  or  other  suitable  opaque  substance, 
and  the  inner  side  of  its  base  or  flaring  portion  e  is  x>lated  or  otherwise 
polished  so  as  to  afford  a  good  reflecting  surface  which  will  not  readily 
tarnish. 

At  night,  after  the  lamp  is  lighted,  the  device  is  mounted  upon  a  post 
or  suspended  from  a  bush  in  any  conspicuous  place,  where  it  will  be 
visible  to  surrounding  insects. 

All  that  portion  of  the  device  above  the  lower  edge  of  the  chimney  D 
will  be  dark,  and  the  rays  of  light  will  be  reflected  downwardly  and  out- 
wardly into  the  liquid  in  the  vessel  A  beneath,  thus  illuminating  the 
liquid,  and  also  that  portion  of  the  transparent  chimney  C  which  is  be- 
low the  lower  edge  of  the  opaque  chimney  D. 

This  portion  b  of  the  chimney  C  being  illuminated,  made  of  glass  or 
other  smooth  substance  and  inclined,  it  operates  to  throw  down  into  the 
liquid  beneath  the  insects  which  fly  against  it. 

Instead  of  securing  the  lamp  to  the  pan  A  this  lamp  and  its  chimneys 
may  be  suspended  above  the  pan  or  other  suitable  vessel  containing 
liquid. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  portions  c  and  d  of  the  chimney  C  might  be  dis- 
pensed with  in  the  manufacture  of  t.Ms  insect-destroyer,  by  fitting  the 
lower  edge  of  the  deflector  directly  to  the  upper  edge  of  the  deflecting 
portion  C.— [Patent  No.  109869,  dated  December  6,  1870.] 
A  lantern  patented  by  Mark  Eigels,  of  Newton,  Ala,  is  provided  with 


MARK    RIGELS     LANTERN. 


273 


projecting,  round,  or  oblong  windows,  arranged  around  it  so  as  to  throw 
the  rays  of  light  in  all  directions,  and  with  a  subjacent  circular  dish  to 
receive  some  liquid.  It  also  consists  in  the  application  thereto  of  a 
series  of  vertical  plates,  one  arranged  between  each  pair  of  windows,  to 
serve  as  reflectors  for  spreading  the  light,  and  also  as  guides  to  conduct 
the  insect  down  into  the  liquid.  It  also  consists  in  cup-shaped  windows, 
made  round  or  oblong  and  detachable,  so  as  to  be  conveniently  and  easily; 
cleaned. 


FlG.  74. — Mark  Rigels'  lantern. 

A  represents  the  body  of  the  lantern,  which  is  preferably  made  round 
and  provided  on  its  sides  with  the  projecting  windows  B,  which  may  be 
made  round  or  oblong,  as  shown,  and  with  glass  or  metallic  sides.  C  is 
a  circular  dish  placed  about  the  bottom  and  top  of  lantern  body,  and 
above  and  beneath  the  windows.  The  device  operates  very  well  with 
the  lower  dish  only.  D  is  a  series  of  vertical  plates  or  reflectors.  When 
the  projecting  windows  are  made  of  glass  the  light  strikes  laterally 
upon  these  plates  and  is  reflected  in  many  directions.  The  windows 
B  will  need  to  be  cleaned  at  suitable  intervals,  and  to  facilitate  this 
operation  I  make  each  of  them  in  two  parts,  6  &',  one  of  which  is  easily 
slipped  over  the  other  or  removed  therefrom. 

The  operation  of  this  device  is  as  follows:  The  lantern  is  placed  in 
18  C  I 


274 


REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


locations  where  insects  abound,  when  they  are  attracted  by  the  light 
from  all  sides.  Myriads  fly  toward  and  against  the  lantern  and  vertical 
plates,  when  they  are  precipitated  into  the  liquid  and  drowned. — [Patent 
No.  135366,  dated  January  28,  1873. 

The  following  communication  and  figure  was  recently  received  at  the 

department : 

25  GRANT  PLACE, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  October  —,  1879. 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  inclose  herewith  drawing  and  description  of  a  tested  cotton-worm 
exterminator,  for  the  consideration  and  use  of  your  entomologist. 

I  will  be  pleased  to  present  Mr.  Huston's  letter  referred  to,  if  required,  or  to  do 
anything  further  desired  of  me  in  the  premises. 
I  am,  sir,  vours,  very  respectfully, 

J.  STITH. 
Hon.  \V.  G.  LE  Due, 

Commissioner  of  Agriculture,  City. 

StiWs  Cotton-worm  Exterminator* — This  exterminator  is  of  the  class 

which  lures  to  self-destruc- 
tion the  mother  moth  on 
her  first  flight  to  deposit 
the  worm-producing  egg, 
and  its  essential  peculiari- 
ties are,  1,  a  day  and  night 
attractor  lantern,  and,  2, 
such  embaying  of  the  lan- 
tern side  that  the  approach - 
ing  moth  falls  a  more  cer- 
tain prey  into  the  usual 
trap-basin  below. 

In  the  cut,  A,  and  A,  are  sides 
of  the  at  tractor-Ian  tern;  these 
sides  are  of  opal  glass  which  by 
day  is  brilliant  white  and  in 
twilight  or  by  night,  lighted  by 
a  lamp  within,  is  most  attract- 
ively luminous;  each  pane  of 
the  lantern  is  flanked  by  an  out- 
reaching  catch-wing  B,  against 
which,  or  against  a  lantern  face 
itself,  one  or  the  other,  the 
rnoth,  attracted  by  the  lantern  and  lured  as  well  by  an  odorous  bait  below,  precipitated 
itself  according  to  its  habit  of  flying  to  or  of  passing  close  alongside  of  a  brilliant 
object;  a  cover  C,  projecting  well  over  all,  prevents  upward  escape  even  if  eleewise 
possible  to  its  now  violently  arrested  flight,  and  all  below  lies  a  trap  basin  D,  charged 
to  a  suitable  depth  with  the  common  enticing  bait  and  effectual  death-bath  as  well, 
of  sweetened  water  and  vinegar,  poisoned  with  cobalt.  Centrally  up  from  the  basin's 
bottom  rises  a  conical  socket  to  cap  securely  on  to  a  stake  so  planted  firmly  afield 
as  to  hold  the  exterminator  just  sightable  above  the  general  surface  of  the  crop  foliage. 
The  opal  panes  may  be  advantageously  tinged  with  a  trace  of  pink,  to  better  siinu- 

*  Mr.  W.  H.  Huston  (Selma,  Ala.),  who  has  thoroughly  tested  this  exterminator  in 
the  cotton-field,  reports  that  it  ivill  attract  and  safely  capture  every  buy  or  fly,  of  erery 
description,  that  cornea  within  its  range.  J.  S. 


FIG.  75.— J.  Stith's  lantern. 


j.  STITH'S  LANTERN.  275 

late  the  color  of  the  young  cotton  bloom ;  the  catch-wings,  the  under  side  of  the  cover, 
and  the  inside  of  the  basin  are  to  be  of  cotton-leaf  green,  and  all  other  visible  parts  a 
quiet  earth-color;  the  lanterns  are  to  be  of  such  size  and  so  disposed  that  one  may  be 
readily  sighted  and  sought  from  any  direction  within  the  field  or  approaching  it.  The 
exterminator  is  to  remain  baited  and  posted  day  and  night,  the  lamp  to  be  lighted  as 
quietly  as  possible  before  twilight,  and  charged  to  surely  burn  the  whole  night 
through ;  its  use  to  begin  before  the  first  moth  of  the  season  may  be  reasonably  ex- 
pected, and  to  continue  till  the  last-belated  straggler  is  surely  gone.  Operations, 
however  thorough,  confined  to  a  limited  area,  unless  absolutely  secluded,  can  give 
only  partial  relief. 

To  secure  specimens  of  other  "fly-by-nights,"  fit  a  wire  gauze  floor  a  little  below 
the  rim  of  the  basin,  and  place  beneath  it  a  sponge  saturated  with  chloroform. 


CHAPTEE  VIII. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  THE  COTTOX  WORM 

[This  bibliography  does  not  pretend  to  be  complete.  It  contains  all 
of  the  papers  which  have  been  consulted  in  the  preparation  of  this  part 
of  the  report,  and,  in  all  probability,  almost  all  articles  of  value  that 
have  ever  been  published  on  the  subject.  Still,  a  subject  of  so  great 
economic  importance  must  necessarily  have  had  a  vast  newspaper  litera- 
ture, which  the  work  of  many  years  could  hardly  collect  and  classify ; 
and,  therefore,  we  have  confined  ourselves  to  the  principal  scientific  and 
agricultural  periodicals.] 

DANIEL  MCKINNEN.    Tour  through  the  British  West  Indies  in  1802-'3  j 

Giving  a  Particular  Account  of  the  Bahama  Islands.     London,  1804. 

Gives  an  account  of  the  ravages  of  the  chenille  on  Acklin's  Island,  Bahamas, 

and  also  of  the  appointing  of  a  commission  by  the  general  assembly  of  the 

islands,  in  1801,  to  investigate  the  causes  for  the  repeated  failure  of  the  cotton 

crop,  the  principal  cause  being  the  ravages  of  the  chenille. 

BRYAN  EDWARDS.  History,  Civil  and  Commercial,  of  the  British  Col- 
onies in  the  West  Indies.  Phila.,  1805-'6. 

Contains  an  account  of  the  ravages  of  the  chenille  in  the  West  Indies  in  1788 
and  1794. 

JACOB  HUBNER.  Zutrage  zur  Sammlung  exotischer  Schmetterlinge, 
bestehend  in  Bekundigung  einzelner  Fliegmuster  neuer  oder  rarer 
nicht  europaischer  Gattuugen,  Augsburg,  Verfasser.  1818-1823. 
Centur.  II. 

Contains  the  original  description  of  Aletla  argillacea.  For  copy  see  chapter- 
terl. 

THOMAS  SAY.  Correspondence  relative  to  the  Insect  that  destroys  the 
Cotton  Plant. 

Southern  Agriculturalist,  I,  p.  203, 1827  (not  verified). 
Noctua  xylina.    Xew  Harmony  Disseminator,  1830. 
Reimpr.    Transactions  of  the  Agricultural  Society  of  the  State  of  Xew 

York.     1856. 

Reimpr.  Say's  Entomology  of  Xorth  America,  Ed.  Le  Conte.  Vol.  I 
pp.  369-371,  1859. 

Consists  of  a  letter  from  C.  W.  Capers  to  Thomas  Say,  transmitting  speci- 
mens of  the  cotton-worm,  and  Say's  reply,  descriL.'ng  the  insect  as  Xoctua 
xylina. 

Dr.  CHISHOLM.  Sir  David  Brewster's  Edinburgh  Cyclopedia,  article 
Cotton.  Edinburgh,  1830. 

Draws  up  a  description  of  the  chenille  in  Latin.     Gives  an  extended  account 
of  its  habits  as  observed  by  him  in  Demerara  (British  Guiana)  in  1301-'2,  and 
proposes,  as  a  remedy,  fumigation  with  sulphur. 
276 


BIBLIOGRAPHY.  277 

ANDREW  URE,  M.  D.,  F.  E.  S.  History  of  the  Manufacture  of  Cotton. 
London,  1836. 

On  pages  156  and  174  of  vol.  i.  are  given  accounts  of  the  chenille  in  British 
Guiana,  and  on  the  Sea  Islands  of  Georgia  (short  and  of  little  value). 

WHITEMARSH  B.  SEABROOK.  A  Memoir  on  the  Origin,  Cultivation, 
and  Uses  of  Cotton,  from  the  Earliest  Ages  to  the  Present  Time,  with 
Especial  Eeference  to  the  Sea  Island  Cotton  Plant,  including  the  Im- 
provements in  its  Cultivation,  and  the  Preparation  of  the  Wool,  &c., 
in  Georgia  and  South  Carolina.  Eead  before  the  Agricultural  Society 
of  Saint  Johns,  Colleton,  November  13,  1843,  and  the  State  Agricul- 
tural Society  of  South  Carolina,  December  6,  1843,  and  by  both  soci- 
eties ordered  to  be  published.  Charleston,  1844. 

On  pages  42-45  is  a  short  historical  sketch  of  the  "  caterpillar  (Noctua  xylina)," 
with  an  account  of  the  methods  used  in  Colleton  County  to  exterminate  them; 
also  some  remarks  upon  the  natural  history  of  the  insect. 

THOMAS  AFFLECK.  Destruction  of  the  Cotton  Crop  by  Insects.  Amer- 
ican Agriculturist,  vol.  v,  p.  341,  September,  1846. 

A  short  historical  account  of  the  cotton- worm,  with  a  description  of  the  state 
of  affairs  in  Mississippi  in  August,  1846,  and  remarks  upon  the  natural  history 
of  the  insect.  In  this  article  Mr.  Affleck  first  formulates  the  migration  theory. 

WHEELOCK  S.  UPTON.  The  Cotton  Caterpillar.  DeBow's  Eeview,  ii, 
1846,  p.  354. 

Advises  soaking  seeds  of  cotton  in  a  solution  of  bluestone  as  a  preventive. 

ANON.    Cotton  Caterpillar.    Southern  Cultivator,  1846,  p.  157. 

ANON.    The  Cotton  Moth.    American  Agriculturist,  1847,  p.  22. 
Remarks  upon  Mr.  Affleck's  paper  of  September,  1846. 

D.  B.  GORHAM,  M.  D.  The  Cotton  Worm,  its  History,  Character,  Vis- 
itations, &c.  DeBow's  Commercial  Eeview,  iii,  p.  535,  1847. 

EEIMPR.    Southern  Cultivator,  1847,  p.  114. 

Contains  an  account  of  previous  visitations  of  the  cotton-worm,  and  extended 
remarks  upon  its  natural  history.  Proclaims  the  migration  theory  in  full  and 
gives  arguments  for  it.  Draws  up  a  description  of  Pimpla  conquisitor  (the  first 
mention  of  a  parasite  on  the  cotton- worm). 

ANON.  The  Cotton  Worm,  its  History,  Character,  Visitations,  &c. 
Southern  Cultivator,  1847,  p.  137. 

Editorial  answer  to  Dr.  Gorham's  theory. 

P.  WINFREE.  The  Cotton  Caterpillar.  De  Bow's  Eeview,  1847,  vol.  iv, 
p.  253. 

Brings  up  arguments  against  Dr.  Gorham's  theory.  Gives  personal  experience 
with  the  cotton-worm  in  the  Bahamas  a  few  years  previous. 

M.  W.  PHILIPS.    The  Cotton  Worm.    Southern  Cultivator,  1848,  p.  28. 
Quite  an  extended  article,  giving  a  description  of  the  larva  and  chrysalis. 

EDWARD  DOUBLED  AY.  Transactions  of  the  London  Entomological  So- 
ciety, 1848.  Proceedings,  p.  33. 

Mentions  having  received  the  American  cotton-moth  from  T.  W.  Harris,  and 
states  that  it  belongs  to  no  European  genus,  coming  nearest  to  Ophiusa. 


278  REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

ANON.  Destroying  the  Cotton  Moth.  Southern  Cultivator,  vol.  viii,  p, 
132, 1850. 

Advocates  "sugaring"  for  the  moth  with  molasses  and  vinegar. 

THOMAS  AFFLECK.  The  Cotton  Moth — Ophiusa  f  (Noctua)  xylina.  Af- 
fleck's Southern  Rural  Almanac  and  Plantation  and  Garden  Calendar 
for  1851  (published  at  the  office  of  the  Picayune,  New  Orleans),  pp, 
49,  50. 

Quotes  from  a  letter  from  Harris  ;  gives  arguments  for  the  hibernation  of  the- 
moth;  describes  the  egg  accurately ;  figures  larva,  chrysalis,  and  moth,  and  also 
figures  an  ichneumonid  parasite,  in  all  probability  Pimpla  conquisitor. 

ANON  ("McG").  Diseases  of  the  Cotton  Plant  and  their  Remedy.  De 
Bow's  Review,  vol.  xi,  p.  7,  1857. 

T.  W.  HARRIS.  A  Treatise  on  some  of  the  Insects  of  New  England,, 
which  are  injurious  to  Vegetation.  Boston,  2d  Edition,  1852,  p.  457. 

A  very  brief  account  of  Noctua  xylina,  Say. 

A.  GUENEE.    Species  general  des  Lepidopteres ;  les  Noctu61ites,  vol.  iir 
p.  400,  1852  ;  ibid.,  p.  401 j  ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  397,  1852. 

In  vol.  ii,  p.  400,  the  cotton-worm  mo  .  is\~  _^,jed  as  Aiiomis  grandipuncta, 
on  page  401  it  is  again  described  as  Anomis  bipunctina  ;  and  again,  in  vol.  iii, 
p.  397,  under  the  latter  u:.rao  (see  Chapter  I). 

B.  C.  L.  WAILES.    The  Cotton  Plant,  its  Origin  and  Varieties,  and  its 
Enemies  and  Diseases.    In  Wailes'  Agriculture  and  Geology  of  Mis- 
sissipi,  first  report,  1854,  pp.  146-148. 

A  short  sketch  of  the  cotton-worm,  which  ho  calls  Depressaria  goxsypiodes* 
Advises,  as  a  remedy,  attracting  the  moth  by  fires. 

W.  I.  BURNETT,  M.  D.  The  Cotton  Worm  of  the  Southern  States, 
Proceedings  of  the  Boston  Society  of  Natural  History,  vol.  iii,  pp. 
316-319. 

A  short  account  of  the  insect,  mostly  from  hearsay.  Proposes  the  migration 
theory.  t 

ANON.  The  Cotton  Worm,  its  Character,  Habits,  &c.  De  Bow's  Re- 
view, vol.  xvii,  pp.  451-459,  1854. 

J.  H.  ZIMMERMAN,  M.  D.    The  Cotton  Worm,  its  Character,  Habits, 
&c.    American  Cotton  Planter,  August,  1855  (from  De  Bow's  Review). 
Gives  an  account  of  the  metamorphoses  of  the  cotton-worm  and  boll-worm. 
Advises  as  remedies  rotation  of  crops  and  sugaring  for  the  moths. 

TOWNEND  GLOVER.  The  Cotton  Caterpillar  (Noctua  xylina}.  Annual 
Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  (Agriculture),  1855,  pp.  71- 
76. 

Gives  popular  descriptions  of  all  stages  of  the  insect,  and  an  historical  account 
of  its  ravages.  Details  the  remedies  known.  Figures  all  stages. 

M.  D.  LANDON.  The  Cotton  Caterpillar  (Noctua  xylina).  Report  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Agriculture,  1864,  p.  90. 

A  short  account  of  the  natural  history  of  the  insect,  with  figures  of  hirva,. 
chrysalis,  and  moth.  Advocates  the  hibernation  of  the  moth. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY.  279 

AUG.  R.  GROTE.  Proceedings  of  the  Entomological  Society  of  Phila- 
delphia.  Vol.  iii,  1864,  p.  541. 

Announces  the  identity  of  Noctua  xylina,  Say,  and  Anomis  bipunctina,  Guene"e,, 
proposes  the  name  Anomis  xylina,  Say. 

JOSEPH  B.  LYMAN.  Cotton  Planting.  Keport  of  the  Commissioner  of 
Agriculture,  1866,  p.  193. 

Under  the  head  of  "Enemies  of  the  cotton-plant,  and  how  to  destroy  them," 
the  cotton-moth  is  described.  Advises  sugaring  for  the  moths,  fires  at  night, 
catching  the  moths  in  hand-nets,  and  picking  the  leaves  on  which  the  eggs  are 
deposited. 

B.  D.  WALSH.  The  Three  So-called  Army-worms.  Practical  Entomol- 
ogist, vol.  ii,  1866,  p.  112. 

TOWNEND  GLOVER.  Insects  Injurious  to  Cotton  Plants.  No.  3.  Cotton 
Caterpillar,  or  Cotton  Army-worm  (Noctua  Anomis)  an/Una  (Say). 
Monthly  Report  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  1866,  p.  331. 

Substantially  the  same  article  as  that  in  the  annual  report  for  1855 ;  very  few- 
changes.  The  larva  is  figured  in  two  positions,  as  also  are  the  chrysalis  ami 
moth. 

GEORGE  W.  MORSE.  The  Cotton  Caterpillar.  Monthly  Reports  of  the 
Department  of  Agriculture,  1867,  p.  249. 

Advises  that  summary  measures  be  taken  to  destroy  the  first  brood  of  worms 
by  offering  a  reward  for  the  first  worm,  and  as  soon  as  that  is  found  turning  a 
force  into  the  fields  to  search  for  them. 

JAMES  M.  FERGUSON.  The  Cotton  Worm.  Monthly  Reports  of  the 
Department  of  Agriculture,  1867,  pp.  288,  289. 

Gives  observations  on  the  natural  history  of  the  cotton-worm,  and  offers  the- 
same  advice  as  the  preceding. 

TOWNEND  GLOVER.  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture,  1867,. 
pp.  58-61. 

Describes  the  cotton-worm  in  all  stages,  with  accurate  figures.  Speaks  of  tho 
northward  migration  of  the  moths  and  of  the  great  good  done  by  the  ants  in 
destroying  both  the  eggs  and  the  larvae.  Gives  a  popular  description  also  of 
Pimpla  conquisitor. 

ANON  ("Zenos.")  The  Cotton  Caterpillar.  Southern  Cultivator,  1868, 
p.  298. 

An  account  of  the  natural  history  of  the  insect.  States  that  the  last  brood 
winters,  in  the  chrysalis  state,  underground,  and  advises  winter  plowing. 

B.  D.  WALSH  and  C.  V.  RILEY.  Entomological  Ignorance  in  the 
South.  American  Entomologist,  vol.  i,  1868,  pp.  14-16. 

A  severe  criticism  of  an  article  which  was  going  the  rounds  of  the  Southern 
press  headed,  "How  to  destroy  the  Cotton  Worm — a  Suggestion." 

B.  D.  WALSH  AND  C.  V.  RILEY.  Cotton  insects.  The  Cotton  Army 
Worm  Noctua  \Anomis]  xylina,  Say.  American  Entomologist,  i,  1868, 
pp.  209-212. 

An  account  of  tho  transformations  of  the  cotton-worm,  with  figures  and  de- 
scription of  each  stage.  Hand-picking,  destroying  the  moths  by  lire,  and 
sprinkling  the  plants  with  cresylic  soap  solution,  are  advised  as  remedies. 


280  REPORT    UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 

D.  L.  PHARES,  M.  D.    The  Cotton  Army  Worm  (Anomis  xylina,  Say.) 
American  Entomologist,  i,  1868,  p.  242. 

States  that  the  insect  hibernates  as  a  moth,  and  describes  the  egg.  Advo- 
cates hand-picking  if  it  can  be  done  by  concerted  action  on  the  part  of  the 
planters.  Advises  also  sugaring  and  fires  in  May  or  June. 

JOSEPH  B.  LYMAN.    Cotton  Culture.    Orange,  Judd  &  Co.    New  York, 

1868.  "The  Cotton  Moth,"  pp.  86-89. 

A  short  account  of  the  metamorphoses  with  figures  of  the  different  stages. 

T.  W.  HARRIS,  M.  D.    Entomological  Correspondence.    Boston,  1869, 
p.  169. 

In  a  letter  to  Doubleday  mentions  having  received  specimens  of  the  moth  and 
asks  for  a  generic  determination.  Date  of  letter  October  24,  1846. 

EDWARD  DOUBLEDAY.    Entomological  Correspondence  of  T.  W.  Harris. 
Boston,  1869,  p.  173. 

In  a  letter  to  Harris  dated  April  2, 1847,  states  that  the  cotton-moth  is  near 
to  Ophiusa  but  is  a  new  genus. 

COL.  J.  E.  GALTNEY.    The  Cotton  Army  Worm.     Southern  Herald, 
Liberty,  Mississippi,  May  and  June,  1869. 

Nos.  1  and  2  are  devoted  to  proving  the  hibernation  of  the  insect  in  the  chrys- 
alis state.  No.  3  advises  as  remedies  hand-picking,  fires  at  night,  sowing  cas- 
tor-bean and  cow-pea  in  the  cotton-field,  and  late  fall  and  winter  plowing. 

ANON.    The  Caterpillar.    Southern  Cultivator,  1869,  p.  13. 

Advocates  hand-picking  as  the  only  sure,  remedy. 
ANON.    The  Cotton  Worm.    Southern  Cultivator,  1869,  p.  18. 

Advises  the  use  of  Dr.  Heard's  moth-trap. 

WILLIAM  JONES.    Cut- worms  and  Caterpillars.    Southern  Cultivator, 

1869,  pp.  106,  107. 

Editorial  answer  to  questions  about  cotton  worm.  Arguments  for  the  hiber- 
nation of  the  chrysalis,  and  notes  on  extensive  parasitism  of  the  last  brood  of 
worms. 

A.  S.  PACKARD,  JR.,  M.  D.    Guide  to  the  Study  of  Insects.    Salem, 
1869,  pp.  313-315.    A.  xylina. 

Short  account  of  natural  history  and  habits. 

ANON.    The  Cotton  Caterpillar.    Carolina  Farmer,  vol.  i,  1868,  p.  142. 

D.  L.  PHARES,  M.  D.,  A.  M.    The  Cotton  Caterpillar  (Anomis  acylina). 

Lecture  delivered  before  the  Farmers'  Club  of  Woodville,  Miss.,  May 

4,  1869 ;  abstract  published  in  Rural  Carolinian,  August,  1870,  vol.  i, 

pp.  683-695. 

This  article  is  accompanied  by  a  full  page  lithograph  of  cotton-stalk  infested 
by  larva,  chrysalis,  and  adult,  and  engravings  of  the  cotton-worm  (Anomis 
xylina),  the  boll-worm  (Heliothis  armigera),  and  the  grass- worm  (Laphrygma  fru- 
gtpcrda)  in  all  stages.  The  article  has  the  following  heads :  History;  Will  the  Cat- 
erpillar Cause  Cotton  Culture  to  cease?  Why  is  the  Caterpillar  worse  some  years?' 
Errors;  Proposed  Modes  of  Destroying ;  Propagation. 

WILLIAM  JONES.    The  Cotton  Caterpillar.    Southern  Cultivator,  1870, 
p.  67. 

Editorial  answer  to  letter  from  A.  S.  M.,  asking  for  information  concerning 
cotton-worms.  States  that  little  is  known,  and  dwells  upon  disputed  point  of 
hibernation. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY.  281 

C.  V.  RILEY,  M.  A.,  PH.  D.  The  Cotton  Army  Worm  (Anomis  xylina, 
Say).  Second  Annual  Report  on  the  Noxious,  Beneficial,  and  other 
Insects  of  the  State  of  Missouri.  1870,  pp.  37-41. 

An  account  of  the  habits  and  natural  history  of  the  insect  with  popular  de- 
scriptions of  all  stages,  and  figures  of  eggs,  larva,  chrysalis,  and  adult. 

J.  PARISH  STELLE.  Southern  Notes.  The  Coming  Cotton  Worm. 
American  Entomologist  and  Botanist,  vol.  ii,  1870,  p.  124. 

States  that  the  worm  is  always  worse  after  a  mild  winter.  Gives  differences 
between  "grass  worm"  and  cotton  worm. 

F.  G.  H.  TAYLOR.  A  Remedy  for  the  Caterpillar.  Southern  Cultivator 
1871,  p.  385. 

Advises  the  use  of  arsenic  in  solution. 

ANON  ("K").  How  to  destroy  Caterpillars.  Southern  Farm  and 
Home,  1871,  p.  135. 

Believes  that  the  webs  on  trees  through  the  winter  contain  the  germs  of  the 
cotton  worms.  Hence  advises  to  burn  all  such  webs. 

E.  H.  ANDERSON,  M.  D.  Cotton  Caterpillars  and  their  Habits.  Rural 
Carolinian,  ii,  1871,  p.  695. 

A  short  review  of  the  natural  history  of  the  cotton  worm,  with  notice  of  a 
longer  paper  soon  to  be  brought  out. 

C.  R.  DODGE.  A  Word  about  "  Cotton  Caterpillars."  Rural  Carolinian, 
vol.  iii  (1871),  pp.  87,  88. 

Corrects  statements  in  the  last-mentioned  paper. 
AUG.  R.  GROTE.     Anomis  xylina.    A  Review.    Rural  Carolinian,  iii 

(1871),  pp.  88-92. 

An  extended  criticism  of  Doctor  Anderson's  paper.  Gives  a  hint  at  the  migra- 
tion theory  which  he  elaborates  in  1874. 

E.  H.  ANDERSON,  M.  D.  More  about  Cotton  Caterpillars.  Rural  Car- 
olinian, iii  (1871),  pp.  204-207. 

A  controversial  reply  to  Mr.  Grote's  criticisms. 

C.  R.  DODGE.  Cotton  Caterpillars— One  Word  More.  Rural  Caroli- 
nian, iii  (1871),  pp.  263,  264. 

Corrects  statements  in  the  last-mentioned  paper. 

AUG.  R.  GROTE.  Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson  and  Cotton  Caterpillars.  Rural 
Carolinian,  iii  (1871),  pp.  308,  309. 

A  review  of  Doctor  Anderson's  last  paper. 

TOWNEND  GLOVER.  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture,  1871, 
pp.  83,  84. 

Gives  an  account  of  the  occurrence  of  the  worm  in  1871,  and  speaks  of  a  re- 
cently invented  machine  for  sprinkling  poisons.  Advises  strenuous  efforts  to 
destroy  the  first  crop  of  worms. 

J.  PARISH  STELLE.  The  Cotton  Caterpillar.  Southern  Farm  and 
Home,  October,  1872,  p.  457.  From  the  Mobile  Register  of  recent 
date. 

Gives  an  account  of  the  insect's  natural  history  and  advises  the  use  of  Paris 
green  in  solution  as  a  remedy. 

ANON.  The  Cotton  Caterpillar  (Anomis  xylina.}  Carolina  Farmer,  vol. 
iv,  1872,  p.  278. 


282  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

J.  PARISH  STELLE.  The  Cotton  Caterpillar.  The  Rural  Alabamian, 
i,  1872,  pp.  78-80. 

Arguments  to  prove  that  the  ravages  of  the  cotton  worm  are  worse  after  a 
severe  winter  than  a  mild  one.  A  description  of  the  moth  and  notes  upon  the 
habits  of  the  worm.  Hand-picking  and  fires  are  advised  as  remedies. 

TOWNEND  GLOVER.  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture,  1872r 
pp.  118-120. 

An  account  of  the  ravages  of  the  cotton  worm  in  1872. 

C.  V.  RILEY.  Remedy  for  the  Cotton  Army-Worm.  Proceedings  of 
the  American  Agricultural  Congress ;  Indianapolis  meeting,  1873. 

Urgently  advises  the  use  of  Paris  green. 

J.  PARISH  STELLE.  The  Cotton  Caterpillar.  All  about  how  to  save  the 
Cotton  Crop.  Mobile  Register,  July  5,  1873. 

Gives  figures  of  the  insect  and  describes  all  stages,  with  a  short  account  of 
habits.  Strongly  advises  the  use  of  Paris  green.  Quotes  from  Riley's  paper 
and  mentions  the  fact  that  he  himself  tried  experiments  the  previous  year  with 
the  poison. 

TOWNEND  GLOVER.  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture,  1873; 
pp.  163-169. 

Gives  a  detailed  account  of  the  injuries  of  the  cotton  worm  in  1873,  and  also 
summarizes  the  answers  to  a  circular  sent  to  Southern  planters  in  the  fall  of 
that  year  inquiring  into  the  efficacy  of  Paris  green  as  a  remedy  for  the  worm, 
and  also  making  inquiry  as  to  what  other  remedies  had  been  used.  The  conclu- 
sion is  in  favor  of  the  green. 

W.  R.  HOWARD.  Anomis  (N)  xylina.  Philip's  Southern  Farmer,  vol. 
vii,  1873,  pp.  361,  362. 

Gives  a  short  account  of  the  natural  history  of  the  cotton  worm,  states  at 
•  length  the  conflict  of  opinion  on  the  subject  of  the  hibernation  of  the  insect, 
quoting  the  opinions  of  all  the  prominent  writers,  and  asking  all  planters  to 
try  and  solve  the  problem. 

TOWNEND  GLOVER.  Monthly  Reports  of  the  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture, 1874,  p.  125. 

States  his  belief  that  the  insect  hibernates  in  the  more  southern  portions  of 
the  cotton  belt,  and  as  the  season  advances  migrates  northward. 

ANOW.    Cotton  Worm.    American  Cyclopedia,  1874,  vol.  v,  p.  419. 

A  short  article  on  the  past  history,  natural  history,  habits,  and  remedies  for 
the  cotton  worm. 

A.  E.  BEACH.  Remedy  for  the  Cotton  Worm.  Science  Record,  1874, 
pp.  370,  371. 

Paris  green. 

A.  R.  GROTE.    The  Cotton  Worm.    American  Naturalist,  1874,  p.  562. 

A.  R.  GROTE.  On  the  Cotton  Worm  of  the  Southern  States  (Aletia  argil- 
lacea  HUbner).  Proceedings  of  the  American  Association  for  the  Ad- 
vancement of  Science,  vol.  xxiii,  1874,  part  ii,  pp.  13-18. 

REIMPR.    Hartford  Courant,  xxxviii,  No.  195. 

REIMPR.  (?).    New  York  Tribune,  extra  No.  21,  pp.  61,  62. 

REFMPR.    American  Naturalist,  vol.  viii,  pp.  722-727. 

Habits  and  synonymy  of  the  cotton  worm.     Proposes  the  migration  theory. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY.  283 

W.  P.  EEESE,  M.  D.  The  Cotton  Caterpillar  Again.  Eural  Carolinian, 
vol.  v,  1874,  pp.  565,  566. 

The  cotton  worm  hibernates  in  the  chrysalis  state  under  leaves,  &c.,  hence, 
as  a  remedy,  burn  leaves  in  fall.  Also  gives  formula  for  use  of  Paris  green  iu 
solution. 

J.  PARISH  STELLE.  The  Cotton  Caterpillar  and  how  to  Combat  it  Suc- 
cessfully. Eural  Carolinian,  vol.  v,  1874,  pp.  511-515. 

An  account  of  habits,  with  descriptions  and  figures  of  the  insect  in  all  stages. 
Advises  the  use  of  Paris  green.  Gives  the  formula  for  the  Texas  cotton-worm 
destroyer. 

CHAS.  E.  DODGE.  Injury  to  Cotton  by  Insects.  Eural  Carolinian,  vol. 
v,  1874,  pp.  417,  418. 

Tabulates  the  first  appearances  of  the  worm,  and  states  Professor  Glover's 
theory,  which  the  table  upholds. 

CHAS.  E.  DODGE.  The  Paris  Green  Eemedy  for  the  Cotton  Caterpillar. 
Eural  Carolinian,  vol.  v,  1874,  pp.  193-195, 

Summarizes  the  replies  to  the  Department  of  Agriculture  circular  of  1873. 

TOWNEND  GLOVER.  Eeport  of  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture,  1874, 
pp.  128,  129. 

A  review  of  Mr.  Grote's  paper  on  the  migration  of  the  cotton  moth. 

A.  E.  GROTE.  List  of  the  Noctuidae  of  North  America.  Bulletin  of 
the  Buffalo  Society  of  Natural  Sciences,  vol.  ii,  1874->75. 

On  page  24,  the  cotton  moth  is  entered  under  Buhner's  name  of  Aletia  argil- 
laoi  a,  and  its  synonymy  is  given. 

C.  Y.  EILEY.   The  Cotton  Worm.   Sixth  Annual  Eeport  on  the  Noxious, 

Beneficial,  and  other  Insects  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  1874,  pp.  17-24. 

This  article  has  the  following  heads:  Paris  Green;  Patents  on  the  Paris  Green 

Mixture;  Hibernation  of  the  Insect ;  Natural  Enemies;  Kange  of  the  Insect ;  Other 

Questions. 

A.  E.  GBOTE.  The  Cotton  Worm,  its  Habitat,  Means  against  it.  Scien- 
tific American,  xxxi  1874,  p.  168. 

A.  E.  GROTE,  A.  M.  The  Cotton  Worm.  Geological  Survey  of  Ala- 
bama, Eeport  of  Progress  for  1875.  Montgomery,  1876,  pp.  199-204. 

An  account  of  the  natural  history  of  the  cotton  worm,  with  arguments  favor- 
ing the  migration  theory. 

A.  S.  PACKARD,  JR.,  M.  D.  The  Cotton  Army  Worm,  Aletia  argillacea 
Hiibner ;  Anomis  xyllna  Say.  Eeport  on  the  Eocky  Mountain  Locust 
and  other  insects  now  injuring  or  likely  to  injure  Field  and  Garden 
Crops  in  the  Western  States  and  Territories.  [Extracted  from  the 
Ninth  Annual  Eeport  of  the  TJ.  S.  Geological  and  Geographical  Sur- 
vey of  the  Territories  for  1875],  pp.  775-778. 

A  general  account  of  the  insect,  compiled  from  Eiley,  Grote,  and  Glover. 

J.  CURTIS  WALDO.  The  Cotton  Worm.  A  Treatise  on  the  Enemy  of 
the  Great  Staple,  with  the  Practical  Experience  of  many  of  the  most 
intelligent  Planters  of  the  South  as  to  the  means  of  destroying  the 
Worm.  New  Orleans,  1878. 

History  of  the  cotton  worm;  How  they  look;  Preventives;  Jute  as  a  prevent- 
ive; Destroyers  of  the  cotton  worm. 


284  REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

TOWNEND  GLOVER.  Manuscript  Notes  from  my  Journal — Cotton,  and 
the  principal  Insects,  &c.,  frequenting  or  injuring  the  Plant  in  the 
United  States.  Washington,  1878.  [A  few  copies  printed  from  stone 
for  private  distribution.] 

On  plate  x  figures  the  cotton  worm  in  all  stages. 
O.  Y.  EILEY.    The  Migrations  and  Hibernations  of  Aletia  argillacea. 

Eead  before  1879  meeting  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences. 
Review  of  same.    Washington  World,  May  10,  1879. 
Review  of  same.    Science  News,  June  1,  1879. 
Review  of  same.    Scientific  American,  June  14,  1879. 

Reviews  the  different  hibernation  theories,  and  states  his  belief  in  the  prob- 
able hibernation  of  the  moth  in  the  southern  parts  of  the  cotton  belt. 

C.  V.  EILEY.  Eeport  of  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture,  1878.  Insects 
affecting  the  Cotton  Plant. 

A  short  report  on  the  progress  made  in  the  cotton  insect  investigation ;  embodies 
a  report  by  A.  R.  Grote. 


Plate  II. 


Pau  iV«il  fo  mi  Xnture  \iy  Geo" 


THE  HOLI.   \VOH\I 

lli-liothis  aniii'l't-ivi  uiu.-ipii.-ri 


II. 


THE   BOLL-WORM 

HELIOTHIS  ARMIGEEA, 


THE  BOLL-WORM. 


CHAPTEE   I. 

IMPORTANCE   OF   THE   SUBJECT. 

Scarcely  inferior  to  the  cotton-worm  in  the  extent  of  its  injuries  to  the 
cotton  crop  is  the  so-called  "boll- worm"  (Heliothis  armigera,  Hiibn.). 
Every  year,  and,  it  is  almost  safe  to  say,  in  every  plantation  in  the 
whole  cotton-belt  this  pest  makes  its  appearance,  and,  although  its  rav- 
ages during  some  years  are  insignificant  beside  those  of  the  cotton-worm, 
yet  the  periodical  appearances  of  the  latter,  the  confining  of  its  hiber- 
nating area  to  the  more  southern  portions  of  the  cotton -belt,  and  its 
numerous  parasites,  all  combine  to  render  its  superiority  to  the  boll- 
worm  as  a  cotton  enemy  very  slight.  There  are,  moreover,  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  destroying  the  boll-worm — difficulties  arising  from  its 
peculiar  methods  of  work,  and  from  the  great  number  of  its  food  plants — 
which  do  not  exist  in  the  case  of  the  cotton-caterpillar,  and  which  help 
to  render  the  former  as  formidable  as  the  latter.  Indeed,  in  a  large 
part  of  the  cotton-belt  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  boll-worm  is 
the  one  by  far  the  more  to  be  feared.  This  is  especially  true  in  those 
more  northern  portions,  which  the  cotton-worm  reaches  only  late  in  the 
season;  too  late,  generally,  to  do  more  than  clear  away  the  too  abundant 
foliage,  and  allow  the  sun  to  ripen  the  bolls  more  quickly.  Even  in 
many  parts  of  the  more  southern  regions  we  find  planters  expressing 
the  opinion  that  the  boll-worm  is  the  more  to  be  dreaded  of  the  two. 

In  Dallas  County,  Alabama,  many  planters  seemed  to  believe  that 
the  boll- worm  does  more  injury  than  the  army  worm,  and  they  there 
think  that  there  is  no  way  of  protecting  the  cotton  from  its  ravages, 
working,  as  it  does,  within  the  bolls  where  poisons  will  not  reach  it. 
Mr.  Schwarz,  writing  from  Hearne,  Eobertson  County,  Texas,  says: 
"The  fields  here  are  more  injured  by  Heliothis  than  by  Aletia." 

An  idea  'of  the  estimation  in  which  this  pest  is  held  throughout  the 
cotton-belt  may  be  gained  from  a  perusal  of  the  following  extracts  from 
our  correspondence : 

There  is  one  other  insect  that  has  destroyed  more  cotton  in  this  locality  within  the 
last  four  years  than  all  other  insects  combined.  It  is  known  here  as  the  boll-worm.  The 
moth  is  larger  and  darker  than  the  cotton-moth  and  deposits  its  eggs  by  piercing  the 
form  or  square  at  the  base  of  the  bud.  The  egg  hatches  in  a  few  days,  and  the  worm 
devours  the  young  boll  before  it  fairly  blooms.  Then  it  crawls  Tipon  the  limb  to  an- 
other boll,  bores  in  and  eats  out  the  contents,  then  to  another,  and  so  on  until  all  (or 
nearly  so)  that  are  upon  the  stalk  are  destroyed.  The  habit  of  the  moth  is  nearly  that 
of  the  cotton-moth,  but  the  worm  does  not  resemble  the  cotton-worm  in  any  respect. 

US! 


288  REPORT   UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

Its  numbers  are  increasing  so  rapidly  and  its  destruction  is  so  great  that  it  is  becom- 
ing a  terror  to  the  cotton  planters  in  this  locality.  If  you  know  anything  of  this  worm, 
and  can  find  out  some  means  of  destroying  it,  you  will  have  the  gratitude  of  the  cot- 
ton planters  in  this  county,  and  probably  throughout  the  cotton-belt. — [  J.  W.  Jackson, 
Titus  County,  Texas. 

The  boll-worm  (Heliothis)  has  done  more  damage  this  year  than  the  Noctua  xylina. 
The  crop  in  this  county  is  cut  off  at  least  one-third.  A  field  of  00  acres  planted  by  my 
brother-in-law,  that,  with  no  casualty,  would  have  made  45  bales,  will  barely  make 
15,  while  some  fields  are  entirely  untouched.  *  *  *  In  the  field  mentioned  above 
we  found  many  stalks  from  6  to  7  feet  in  height  without  a  single  boll.— [Walter 
Barnes,  Cherokee  County,  Texas. 

The  boll- worm  ( Heliothis)  has  done  more  injury  to  the  cotton  plant  here  than  any 
other  insect  this  year.  Some  years  they  do  a  great  deal  of  damage.  It  is  said  by  some 
farmers  that  50  per  cent,  of  the  crop  is  lost  on  account  of  the  boll-worm. — [J.  M. 
Glasco,  Gilmer,  Upshur  County,  Texas. 

The  boll- worm  is  sometimes  more  injurious  than  the  army  worm.  Though  not  so 
numerous  nor  so  regular  in  its  visitations,  it  is  far  more  formidable  in  its  ravages  than 
the  leaf-worm,  since  there  is  no  way  of  saturating  the  cotton  bolls  with  poison  to 
destroy  them. — [W.  J.  Jones,  Virginia  Point,  Galveston  County,  Texas. 

THE  BOLL-WORM. — From  every  quarter  we  hear  complaints  of  the  ravages  of  these 
pests,  which  in  a  given  series  of  years,  no  doubt  do  more  injury  to  the  cotton  than  even  ihe 
dreaded  caterpillar.  They  are  unusually  destructive  at  this  time,  both  in  the  hills  and 
bottom  lands.  *  *  *  \ye  hear  very  little  complaint  of  the  cotton-worm  in  this  neigh- 
borhood.—[Louisiana  Sugar  Bowl,  September  13,  1879,  from  the  Shreveport  Times  of 
July  22. 

The  boll-worm  visited  the  crops  here  early  in  July  (during  which  month  we  had 
repeated  rains),  and  has  continued  its  ravages  up  to  the  present  period.  The  opinion 
of  the  the  planters,  as  well  as  my  own,  is  that  it  has  done  more  damage  this  year  than 
the  Anomis  will  do,  though  many  fields  are  now  stripped  of  their  leaves  by  the  latter. 
I  regard  the  crop  as  damaged  at  least  one-third. — [E.  H.  Anderson,  M.  D.,  Kirkwoodf 
Miss. 

The  boll-worm,  I  doubt  not,  has  destroyed  more  cotton  in  Alabama  than  the  Aletia  ar- 
)illacea.—[D.  Lee,  Mount  Willing,  Lowndes  County,  Ala. 

I  would  mention  the  boll- worm,  which  bores  into  the  boll  and  destroys  each  lobe 
pierced,  and  many  think  that  the  boll-worm  is  more  destructive  on  an  average  than  the 
caterpillar,  for  the  reason  that  it  attacks  the  cotton,  more  or  less,  every  year.  I  have 
counted  frequently  as  many  on  some  stalks  as  20  fine  bolls  destroyed  by  boll-worms. 
In  1847  there  was  no  caterpillar ;  but  the  boll-worm,  from  written  memoranda  furnished 
me  by  Hon.  A.  C.  Mitchell,  of  Glenville,  Ala.,  nearly  destroyed  the  crop,  being  as  de- 
structive as  the  caterpillar  the  present  year. — [H.  Hawkins,  Hawkinsville,  Ala. 

A  good  many  planters  in  this  locality  dread  it  as  much  as  they  do  the  caterpillar. — [Knox, 
Menge  and  Evans,  Faunsdale,  Ala. 

It  has  been  my  opinion  that  the  damage  caused  by  the  boll-worm  is  as  heavy  as  any 
caused  by  the  caterpillars.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Camden,  Ala. 

I  believe  the  boll- worm  has  done  a  great  deal  more  damage  in  the  aggregate  than  the 
cotton-worm. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autagaville. 

The  boll-worm  does  us,  upon  the  whole,  more  damage  than  the  col  ton- worm. — [A.  J. 
Cheves,  Montezuma,  Ga. 

A  brief  review  of  tbe  Entomological  Record,  prepared  by  Mr.  Town- 
end  Glover  during  the  eleven  years,  1866-1876,  for  the  Monthly  Keports 
of  this  department,  shows  plainly  that  the  damage  done  by  the  boll- 
worm  during  that  space  of  time  was  not  greatly  inferior  to  that  done  by 
the  cotton-worm.  In  that  case,  however,  there  is  difficulty  in  estima- 
ting them  comparatively,  from  the  fact  that  both  were  indiscriminately 


AMOUNT    OF    DAMAGE.  289 

reported  by  correspondents  as  "  worms."  The  two  taken  together, 
though,  form  a  pair  capable  of  doing  damage  such  as  few  crops  beside 
cotton  are  afflicted  with. 

Corn  is  the  only  other  crop  which  the  boll- worm  afflicts  at  all  com- 
parably to  cotton,  and,  although  in  this  article  we  shall  consider  this 
insect  only  in  its  relation  to  the  cotton  crop,  in  speaking  of  its  impor- 
tance it  may  be  well  to  state  the  harm  occasionally  done  to  corn.  One 
of  the  most  marked  instances  was  in  1860,  in  Kansas.  It  was  a  year  of 
great  drought,  and  the  corn  crop  was  almost  entirely  destroyed  by  the 
corn-worm.  According  to  the  Prairie  Farmer  of  January  31,  1861,  one 
county  which  in  1859  raised  436,000  bushels  of  corn,  only  produced 
5,000  bushels  in  1860,  and  this  was  poor  and  full  of  worms,  and  this 
seems  to  have  been  a  fair  sample  for  the  State.  This  very  season,  a 
writer  from  Cherokee  County,  Kansas,  addressed  Coleman's  Rural 
World,  complaining  bitterly  of  the  destruction  of  the  corn- worm.  He 
states  that  there  was  not  an  ear  in  his  cornfield  which  the  worms  had 
not  eaten. 

Professor  Eiley  says: 

It  attacks  corn  in  the  ear,  at  first  feeding  on  the  silk,  but  afterwards  devouring  the 
kernels  at  the  terminal  end;  being  securely  sheltered  the  while  within  the  husk.  I 
have  seen  whole  fields  of  corn  nearly  ruined  in  this  way  in  the  State  of  Kentucky;  but 
nowhere  have  I  known  it  to  be  so  destructive  as  in  Southern  Illinois. 

Professor  French  says : 

As  a  general  thing  I  think  it  has  not  been  so  destructive  during  the  past  season  as 
it  is  sometimes,  but  in  one  field  of  late  corn  I  found  nearly  every  ear  eateu  by  them, 
there  being  from  one  to  half  a  dozen  worms  to  each  ear.  In  many  of  them,  when  my 
observations  were  made,  while  the  corn  was  yet  soft,  the  process  of  molding  and 
decay  had  progressed  to  such  an  extent  that  it  was  difficult  to  conceive  that  such  corn 
could  ever  become  anything  fit  for  man  or  beast  to  eat. 

In  the  Department  of  Agriculture  Eeport  for  1855  we  find  the  follow- 
ing statement : 

In  an  interesting  communication  from  Col.  Benjamin  F.  Whitner,  of  Tallahassee, 
Fla.,  he  states  that  the  boll- worm  was  scarcely  known  in  his  neighborhood  before  the 
year  1841 ;  and  yet,  in  the  short  period  of  fourteen  years,  it  had  increased  to  such  a 
degree  as  to  have  become  one  of  the  greatest  enemies  to  the  cotton  on  several  planta- 
tions in  that  vicinity. 

In  1867,  a  correspondent  from  Jefferson  Parish,  Louisiana,  stated  that 
"  the  boll- worm  destroys  about  one-half  the  crop  with  us.  This  year 
none  of  my  neighbors  raise  cotton." 

These  instances  will  be  sufficient  to  show  the  estimation  in  which  the 
boll- worm  is  generally  held  throughout  the  South.  The  estimates  of 
damage  caused  by  this  insect  are,  however,  almost  always  exaggerated. 
Very  many  young  "  squares  "  perish  from  some  cause ;  it  may  bo  from 
non-fertilization,  from  some  peculiarity  of  the  weather,  or  from  injury 
caused  by  some  other  insect  than  HeliotMs  ;  but  many  planters  attrib- 
ute the  destruction  of  all  their  young  bolls  to  the  boll -worm,  and  adduce 
as  evidence  of  this  the  fact  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  bolls  exhibit 
19  c  I 


290  EEPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

on  one  side  what  appears  to  be  a  slight  puncture.  As  I  never  saw  any 
insect  inflicting  this  injury,  I  am  unable  to  state  whether  this  impres- 
sion of  the  planters  be  correct  or  not.  Several  reasons  have  led  me  to 
doubt  it.  First,  it  seems  improbable  that  the  young  boll- worms  should 
eat  out  the  contents  of  so  small  a  proportion  of  the  bolls  which  they 
puncture.  I  have  often  observed  from  twenty  to  fifty  of  these  blasted 
"squares"  lying  on  the  ground  under  a  single  cotton-plant,  while  the 
most  patient  search  revealed  only  one  or  two  boll-worms  upon  the  plant. 
Second,  the  punctures  referred  to  above  differ  in  appearance  from  those 
which  I  have  seen  the  young  boll- worms  make.  The  newly -hatched 
boll- worm,  according  to  my  observation,  when  it  punctures  a  young  boll, 
gnaws  a  hole  through  the  pod  sufficiently  large  to  insert  its  head.  The 
punctures  in  the  blasted  square  appears  much  smaller,  as  if  made  by 
some  haustellate  insect. 
The  observations  of  Mr.  Trelease  upon  this  point  were  as  follows : 

When  a  flower,  bud,  or  young  boll  of  cotton  is  punctured  by  the  boll-worm,  the 
involucre  or  "  square"  which  surrounds  its  base  spreads  open  or  "flares,"  and  sooner 
or  later  the  injured  fruit  falls  to  the  ground.  Even  before  the  cotton  commenced  to 
bloom,  many  of  these  blasted  squares  were  to  be  seen  upon  the  ground,  and  in  every 
case  where  the  involucre  had  flared  open  I  found  the  form  punctured,  though  most  of 
these  punctures  early  in  the  season  were  very  small  and  had  no  excrement  in  the 
square  beneath  them ;  thus  differing  from  punctures  formed  by  the  boll-worm.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  these  very  small  perforations  are  made  by  hemipterous  insects ;  and 
I  strongly  suspect  two  species,  which  are  very  common  on  the  cotton-plant,  and  which 
have  the  habit  of  running  around  the  stalk  as  you  try  to  obtain  a  view  of  them,  much 
as  squirrels  do  under  similar  circumstances,  so  that  they  always  keep  the  stem  inter- 
posed between  themselves  and  an  observer.  This  shyness  prevented  me  from  verify- 
ing my  suspicious,  though  I  watched  the  insects  a  great  many  times.  On  the  other 
hand,  many  blasted  squares  i  esult  from  climatic  injuries,  and  these  may  be  distin- 
guished from  those  caused  by  insects,  since  the  square  retains  its  normal  position  and 
form.* 

Mr.  Glover  states  that  he  has  observed  three  species  of  Hemipterous 
insects  pierce  cotton-bolls,  thus  causing  them  to  fall.  The  cotton  Ly- 
gaeus  (Lygaem  sp.)  although  usually  carnivorous,  he  has  seen  to  pierce  the 
terminal  shoots  and  buds  of  cotton.  He  describes  it  as  follows  : 

The  perfect  insect  is  rather  more  than  one-twentieth  of  an  inch  in  length,  with  red- 
dish-brown eyes,  yellowish  antennae,  and  a  head  and  thorax  black;  the  triangular 
space  between  the  wings  is  black;  the  wings  are  brownish-yellow,  barred  in  the  cen- 
ter with  two  triangular  black  marks ;  the  ends  of  wings  diamond-shaped,  of  a  light 
color  ;  the  upper  part  of  the  thigh  is  black ;  and  the  rest  of  the  leg  yellowish. 

Of  Calcorus  bimaculatus,  II.  Schf.,  and  C.  rapidus  Say,  which  he  also 
found  piercing  cotton-bolls,  he  says : 

I  observed  three  insects  (C.  bimaculatu*')  when  confined  under  glass,  sucking  the  sap 
from  the  buds  and  young  bolls,  their  only  food.  The  young  eventually  completed 
their  transformations  into  perfect  insects.  They  were  observed,  moreover,  to  eject 
large  drops  of  green  sap  from  their  abdomens,  which  could  only  have  been  procured 
from  the  buds  themselves.  *  *  *  The  perfect  insect  is  seven-twentieths  of  an  inch 
in  length ;  the  antennae  are  brown  and  green,  the  eyes  brown ;  the  thorax  somewhat 
triangular ;  the  anterior  part  green,  and  shaded  with  reddish-brown  posteriorly ;  the 

*  Appendix  I,  report  of  William  Trelease. 


BOLLS    PIERCED    BY    CALCORIS   RAPIDUS.  291 

legs  brown  and  green ;  the  wing-cases  with  a  cross,  shaped  like  the  letter  X,  forming 
four  triangles,  those  nearest  the  thorax  being  reddish-brown ;  the  side  triangles  are 
green. 

There  is  likewise  another  species  (C.  rapidus)  which  was  found  perforating  the  young 
flower  buds  and  bolls  of  cotton  similar  to  the  above.  The  head  and  anterior  portion  of 
the  thorax  are  reddish-brown,  the  remainder  of  the  thorax  yellow  with  a  double  mark 
in  the  middle ;  the  wing-cases  are  brownish-black,  with  two  longitudinal  yellow  lines 
from  the  upper  outside  corner  of  the  wing-cases  to  the  posterior  edge,  forming  a  divid- 
ing mark,  somewhat  shaped  like  the  letter  X. 

Mr.  Trelease,  on  several  occasions,  noticed  a  bug  piercing  the  bolls, 
which,  from  his  description,  is  probably  Calcoris  rapidus. 

It  will  be  but  just  to  add  that  many  planters  appreciate  the  difference 
between  the  bolls  actually  destroyed  by  Heliotliis  and  those  destroyed 
by  other  means,  as  shown  by  the  answers  of  several  of  our  correspon- 
dents. Still,  on  the  whole,  it  seems  probable  that  the  majority  confound 
the  various  causes  and  put  these  results  all  down  to  the  boll- worms' 
account.  But  even  allowing  for  this,  its  ravages,  it  can  easily  be  seen, 
are  of  a  very  grave  character. 


CHAPTEE    II. 

NATURAL    HISTORY. 

NOMENCLATIVE. 

Of  popular  names  the  boll- worm  has  one  for  almost  every  plant  upon 
•which  it  feeds  and  for  every  country  which  it  inhabits ;  and  as  it  is, 
as  will  soon  be  shown,  almost  cosmopolitan  and  a  very  general  feeder, 
these  names  are  many.  Throughout  cotton-growing  States  it  is  very  gen- 
erally known  as  the  loll-icorm  when  it  occurs  upon  cotton ;  when  it  occurs 
upon  corn  it  is  called  the  corn-worm,  and  as  such  it  is  known  iu  those 
Western  States  in  which  it  infests  the  corn  crop.  In  many  Southern 
States  it  is  known  in  the  early  part  of  the  season  as  the  corn-bud  worm. 
Where  found  upon  tomatoes  it  is  called  the  tomato  worm.  These  four 
names  are  the  ones  by  which  it  is  best  known  in  this  country.  As  we 
shall  consider  it  only  in  its  relation  to  cotton,  we  shall  speak  of  it  as  the 
boll- worm,  except  where  it  is  necessary  to  make  use  of  one  of  the  other 
titles. 

As  to  the  scientific  classification  of  the  boll-worm  moth,  we  may  safely 
say  that  it  is  a  near  relation  to  the  cotton- worm  moth.  It  belongs  to 
the  same  order,  Lepidoptera;  the  same  section,  Heterocera;  the  same 
family,  Noctuidae ;  and  the  same  tribe,  Noctuae.*  Its  genus  is  Heliothis 
of  Huebner,  and  its  specific  name,  armigera,  given  it  by  the  same  author. 

The  scientific  nomenclature  of  this  insect  has  suffered  from  the  intro- 
duction of  but  a  single  synonym  so  far  as  we  are  aware.  It  was  origi- 
nally described  by  Huebner  as  Heliothis  armigera.  In  1863,  in  a  paper 
entitled  "Additions  to  the  Catalogue  of  U.  S.  Lepidoptera,"  Mr.  Grote 
described  a  male  specimen,  taken  on  Long  Island,  New  York,  as  Helio- 
this umbrosus  n.  sp.,  attaching  to  the  description  the  "observation" — 

Approaches  to  the  European  H.  armigera,  which  species  has,  however,  a  discal  mark 
on  the  posterior  wings,  and  is  otherwise  specifically  distinct.  It  appears  also  from  the 
description  of  H.  exprimam  Walker,  C.  B.  M.  Noct.,  p.  687,  to  have  some  resemblance 
with  that  species,  but  the  expressions  "(alae  anticae)  orbiculari  et  reuiformi  magnis 
ferrugineo  marginatis,"  and  "  (alae  posticae)  litura  discali,"  do  not  apply  to  the  species 
I  have  just  described. t 

*  For  brief  characterizations  of  these  subdivisions  see  Part  I,  Chapter  I. 

tThe  description  is  as  follows : 

"Anterior  wings,  yellowish-gray,  crossed  by  several  indistinct  irregular  darker  shaded 
lines.  Discal  spot  blackish,  beyond  which  is  a  row  of  minute  black  dots,  one  on  each 
nervule,  running  parallel  with  the  outer  margin  of  the  wing  and  connected  with  each 
other  by  a  faint  waved  line,  the  curvatures  turned  inward  toward  the  base  of  the  wing ; 
fringes  dark.  Posterior  wings  yellowish-white,  without  markings,  except  a  broad 
blackish  band  running  parallel  with  the  outer  margin,  and  which  is  partly  interrupted 
near  the  center  by  a  space  of  a  similar  color  to  the  rest  of  the  wing ;  fringes  white. 


FOOD    PLANTS.  293 

Before  1873,  however,  Mr.  Grote  had  discovered  that  Heliothis  armi- 
gera  was  a  very  variable  species,  and  that  what  he  had  described  as  H. 
unibrosus  in  18G3  was  simply  one  of  its  varieties.  He  therefore  noted 
the  fact  in  the  bulletin  of  the  Buffalo  Society  of  Natural  Sciences,  Vol.  I, 
p.  120.  He  there  says : 

While  a  comparison  of  American  specimens  (unibrosus)  with  European  individuals 
(armigcra)  affords  me  no  apparently  valid  distinguishing  characters,  yet  I  remark  that 
the  larvae  have  not  yet  been  compared.  I  am  not  yet  prepared  to  believe  that  the 
species  has  been  introduced  from  Europe,  feeding,  as  it  does  here,  on  some  peculiarly 
American  genera  of  plants. 

Some  time  previous  to  this,  Mr.  Glover  had  acknowledged  the  identity 
of  the  European  and  American  insects  in  the  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture Reports,  as  also  had  Walsh  and  Riley  in  the  American  Entomolo- 
gist, and  Riley  in  the  Missouri  Entomological  Reports. 

GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION. 

We  shall  not  enter  into  the  discussion  as  to  the  original  habitat  of 
the  boll-worm,  as  such  would  necessarily  prove  fruitless  on  account  of 
the  insufficiency  of  the  data.  Mr.  Grote  goes  on  to  say : 

Yet,  according  to  Guene"e,  its  habitat  is  very  extended,  since  it  has  been  taken  in 
Australia,  where,  however,  it  has  been  introduced  since  the  colonization,  and  from 
America.  It  occurs  apparently  rarely  in  Europe,  whereas  it  is  here  common.  Has  it 
reached  Europe  by  a  westward  route  from  California  ?  We  shall  probably  soon  write 
after  its  habitat— the  world! 

It  is  a  suggestive  fact,  reflecting  upon  Mr.  Grote's  conclusion,  that  the 
earliest  mention  of  the  boll-worm  in  this  country  which  we  have  found 
is  1841,  whereas  Huebner  described  the  European  form  prior  to  1825. 

As  above  stated,  the  geographical  range  of  the  species  is  very  great. 
Mr.  Bond,  at  the  March  1,  18G9,  meeting  of  the  London  Entomological 
Society,  exhibited  specimens  from  the  Isle  of  Wight,  Java,  and  Austra- 
lia, and  these  localities,  taken  in  connection  with  other  parts  of  Europe 
and  the  United  States,  seem  to  justify  Mr.  Grote's  prediction. 

FOOD  PLANTS. 

For  many  years  it  was  not  known  that  the  destructive  corn-worm  and 
the  cotton  boll- worm  were  the  same  insect.  It  was  suspected  by  many 
before  actually  demonstrated,  but  is  even  now  unknown  to  the  majority 
of  agriculturists.  The  first  record  of  the  identity  of  the  two  insects 
which  we  have  been  able  to  find  is  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture 

Under  surface  of  the  wings  pale,  showing  the  black  discal  spot  on  the  anterior  wings 
plainly,  outside  of  which  is  a  blackish  transverse  band  and  a  small  blackish  streak 
near  the  upper  margin.  Under  surface  of  post  wings  immaculate,  except  a  faint 
blackish  shade  near  the  outer  margin.  Head,  thorax,  and  tegulae  yellowish-gray, 
darker  than  the  anterior  wings.  Body  grayish,  clothed  at  the  sides  with  whitish  hairs 
and  darkening  towards  the  tip.  Exp.  1^  inches." — [Proc.  Ent.  Soc.  Phila.,  vol.  1 
(1861-1803),  p.  219. 


294  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

Report  for  1854,  in  an  article  headed  "Insects  infesting  the  cotton- 
plant,"  by  Townend  Glover.    Mr.  Glover  says : 

There  is  a  striking  similarity  between  the  boll-worm  and  the  corn-worm,  in  appear- 
ance, food,  and  habits,  both  in  the  caterpillar  and  perfect  state,  whicli  leads  to  the 
supposition  that  the  boll-worm  may  be  the  young  of  the  corn-worm  moth,  and  the 
eggs  deposited  on  the  young  bolls  as  the  nearest  substitTate  for  green  corn,  and  placed 
on  them  only  when  the  corn  has  become  too  old  and  hard  for  their  food.  *  *  *  Col. 
B.  A.  Sorsby,  of  Columbus,  Miss.,  has  bred  both  insects,  and  declares  them  to  bo  the 
same ;  and  moreover  when,  according  to  his  advice,  the  corn  was  carefully  wormed, 
on  two  or  three  plantations,  the  boll-worms  did  not  make  their  appearance  that  season 
on  the  cotton,  notwithstanding  on  neighboring  plantations  they  committed  great 
ravages. 

To  Col.  B.  A.  Sorsby,  then,  must  be  given  the  credit  for  first  making 
this  important  discovery. 

The  next  mention  of  the  fact  with  which  we  have  met  is  in  the  Amer- 
ican Cotton  Planter  for  August,  1855,  in  an  article  on  the  cotton- worm, 
by  J.  H.  Zimmerman,  M.  D.  (See  bibliographical  list  to  Part  I.)  Dr. 
Zimmerman  says  (p.  229) : 

Judging  from  analogy,  I  supposed  it  to  be  more  than  probable  that  the  worm  that 
preys  on  the  ends  of  the  ears  of  our  green  corn,  and  the  buds  or  tassels  before 
they  come  out,  was  the  same  kind  or  species  so  destructive  to  the  cotton,  and  that  it 
would  be  equally  as  destructive  to  the  corn  crops  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the 
corn  matures  with  the  first  crop  or  generation  of  the  worm,  and  before  it  becomes  nu- 
merous by  a  succession  of  generations.  This  supposition  proved  to  be  correct  on  a 
further  investigation.  I  have  obtained  the  worm  from  the  ears  of  the  green  corn, 
and  have  fed  it  on  the  cotton-bolls,  and  it  would  soon  take  on  the  same  physical  com- 
plexion and  features,  in  every  particular,  of  those  which  were  obtained  from  the 
cotton. 

The  statement  of  Colonel  Sorsby  was  repeated  in  the  Department 
of  Agriculture  Report  for  1855.  In  1858,  in  a  communication  to  the 
American  Cotton  Planter  for  November  of  that  year,  Mr.  E.  Sanderson 


Now,  Mr.  Editor,  my  opinion  is  that  I  can  trace  the  worms  from  the  corn-fields  to 
the  cotton-fields,  though  1  may  be  mistaken  in  this ;  but  the  first  place  that  I  can  find  the 
worm,  the  same  species,  is  in  the  corn-fields,  in  the  roasting-ears.  I  have  looked  and 
examined  in  every  hole  and  corner  to  find  where  they  make  their  first  appearance, 
and  I  can  find  them  nowhere  but  in  the  corn-fields.  There  they  may  be  found  in  the 
roasting-ear,  &c. 

The  first  time  that  Mr.  Glover  recorded  his  belief  in  the  identity  of 
the  two  insects  was  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture  Report  for  1804, 
p.  554,  in  the  following  words : 

The  corn-worm  is  very  injurious  in  several  parts  of  the  country,  especially  in  the 
Middle  and  Southern  States.  *  *  *  We  have  seen  a  similar  insect,  if  not  the 
same,  in  the  Southern  States,  where  it  is  known  as  the  cotton-boll  worm,  and  is  ex- 
ceedingly destructive  to  cotton.  Moreover,  we  have  fed  the  corn-worm,  found  on 
corn,  on  cotton-bolls,  and  vice  versa,  and  the  moths  produced  were  identical. 

Mr.  Glover  repeats  in  the  Monthly  Report  for  July,  186G : 
For  the  sake  of  proving  this  fact,  I  have  frequently  taken  the  worms  from  unripe 
ears  of  corn  and  fed  them  entirely  on  cotton-bolls,  as  also  the  worms  from  cotton  and 


HELIOTHIS   VS.    TOMATOES.  295 

fed  them  on  corn,  and  in  no  case  did  the  change  of  diet  appear  to  affect  the  health  of 
the  caterpillars  in  the  least,  as  they  went  through  all  their  transformations  in  exactly 
the  same  manner,  and  when  the  perfect  moths  made  their  appearance  they  could  not 
be  distinguished  from  each  other,  although  I  may  here  observe  that  even  from  the 
same  brood  of  caterpillars  the  perfect  moths  vary  considerably  in  size,  color,  and 
markings. 

Professor  Eiley,  inliis  Third  Missouri  Entomological  Report  (1871), 
again  states  the  case  as  follows : 

The  "boll- worm"  has  become  a  by-word  in  all  the  Southern  cotton-growing  States, 
and  the  "  cotton-worm"  is  a  like  familiar  term  in  those  States,  as  well  as  in  many 
other  parts  of  the  Union ;  bnt  few  persons  suspect  that  these  two  worms,  the  one 
feeding  on  the  corn,  tha  other  on  the  cotton-boll,  are  identically  the  same  insect,  pro- 
ducing exactly  the  same  species  of  moth.  But  such  is  the  fact,  as  I  myself  first  ex- 
perimentally proved  in  1854. 

The  consideration  of  the  boll- worm  in  corn  is  inseparably  connected 
with  the  consideration  of  its  work  in  cotton,  so  little  more  need  be  said 
here  of  its  methods  of  work.  In  those  corn  States  which  do  not  grow 
cotton,  it  is  greatly  dreaded.  Whole  crops  are  ruined  in  Kansas,  Ken- 
tucky, South  Illinois,  and  Missouri,  and  scarcely  a  year  passes  without 
much  damage  being  done. 

According  to  Eiley,  there  are  two  broods  of  the  worms  a  year  in  those 
States,  and  very  early  and  very  late  corn  fare  the  worst,  the  intermedi- 
ate varieties  usually  escaping  severe  injury.  In  seasons  of  protracted 
length,  a  third  brood  is  sometimes  produced,  which,  for  want  of  other 
food,  lives  upon  the  hard  kernels  of  well-ripened  ears.  Mrs.  Treat  has 
shown  that  an  early  brood  in  New  Jersey  bores  into  the  stalks  of  corn, 
and  also  eats  through  the  leaves  surrounding  the  staminate  flowers 
before  the  ears  had  begun  to  make  their  appearance.  This  would  argue 
perhaps  three  broods  a  year  north,  making  the  exceptional  late  brood  of 
which  Professor  Eiley  speaks  a  fourth.  The  so-called  "bud-worms"  of 
the  Southern  corn  crop  are  nothing  but  this  same  early  brood  of 
Heliothis,  having  almost  precisely  similar  habits  to  those  observed  in 
New  Jersey  by  Mrs.  Treat. 

In  the  role  of  a  tomato- worm,  Heliothis  has  done  a  great  deal  of  dam- 
age. In  Maryland,  in  1869,  according  to  Mr.  Glover,  these  worms  did 
great  injury  to  the  tomato-crop,  eating  alike  the  ripe  and  the  unripe 
fruit,  gnawing  great  holes  in  them  and  rendering  them  unfit  for  market 
use.  One  worm  would  sometimes  entirely  ruin  a  number  of  tomatoes  on 
one  plant  alone.  Concerning  this  taste  of  the  boll- worm,  Mr.  Eiley  says : 

This  glutton  is  not  even  satisfied  with  ravaging  these  two  great  staples  of  the 
country,  cotton  and  corn,  but,  as  I  discovered  in  1867,  it  voraciously  attacks  the 
tomato  in  South  Illinois,  eating  into  the  green  fruit,  and  thereby  causing  such  fruit 
to  rot.  In  this  manner  it  often  causes  serious  loss  to  the  tomato-grower,  and  it  may 
justly  be  considered  the  worst  enemy  to  the  tomato  in  that  section  of  the  country. 

In  the  American  Entomologist,  ii,  172,  we  find  the  following  inter- 
esting statement : 

We  learn  from  a  recent  number  of  Scientific  Opinion  that,  at  a  late  meeting  of  the 
London  Entomological  Society,  Mr.  Jenner  Weir  exhibited  specimens  of  pur  cotton 
boll-worm  moth  (Heliothis  armigera,  Hiibn.)  which  were  bred  from  larvae  which  fed  on 


296  EEPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

the  fruit  of  the  tomato.  As  we  have  already  shown-(American  Entomologist,  i,  pp. 
212, 213),  this  same  species  attacks  our  corn,  and  does  great  damage  to  our  tomatoes 
by  eating  into  the  fruit;  and  the  fact  of  its  being  bred  from  the  tomato  in  England, 
"where  this  fruit  is  with  difficulty  grown,  is  interesting  and  suggestive. 

But  the  tomato- worm  is  not  confined  to  the  fruit,  as  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  several  specimens  were  recently  sent  to  the  department,  with 
the  remark  that  they  were  found  boring  into  the  terminal  shoots  of 
tomato  plants  at  Macon,  Ga.,  early  in  September. 

Another  common  garden  vegetable  that  is  also  injured  by  the  boll- 
worm  is  the  garden  pea.  We  extract  the  following  from  the  American 
Entomologist,  ii,  pp.  42,  43 : 

From  the  following  passage  in  an  address  on  insects,  delivered  at  Vineland,  N.  J., 
by  that  excellent  observer,  Mrs.  Mary  Treat,  of  that  place,  and  published  in  the  Vine 
and  Weekly  of  August  21,  1869,  it  appears  that  this  very  same  larva  also  feeds  upon 
the  undeveloped  tassels  of  corn  and  upon  green  pease. 

"This  year,  green  pease  have  been  eaten  into  by  a  hatefullooking  worm,  and  a  simi- 
lar one  ate  into  the  staminate  flowers  of  the  corn  before  it  tasseled  out,  commencing 
their  depredations  while  the  tassels  were  still  enfolded  in  the  leaves.  I  have  exam- 
ined considerable  corn,  and  in  some  gardens  this  worm  has  done  much  damage.  While 
feeding,  it  is  of  a  green  color;  bnt  when  it  comes  to  full  size  it  turns  brown,  and  goes 
into  the  ground  to  assume  the  chrysalis  form.  I  already  have  the  moths  of  the  cater- 
pillar that  lived  upon  the  pease,  and  am  waiting  for  those  that  lived  upon  the  corn  to 
make  their  appearance,  so  that  I  may  decide  whether  they  are  distinct  species.  It  is 
a  query  with  me  what  the  second  brood  of  caterpillars  will  live  upon  as  green  pease 
and  untasseled  corn  will  be  out  of  their  reach.  " 

There  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  identity  of  the  moth,  the  larva?  of  which  fed  upon 
pease,  because  Mrs.  Treat  obligingly  forwarded  to  us  in  the  middle  of  August  specimens 
actually  bred  by  her  from  green  pease,  which  differ  in  no  respect  from  the  common  type 
of  the  corn-worm  moth.  Unfortunately,  she  has  mixed  together  promiscuously  the 
moths  bred  by  her  from  green  pease  and  those  which  she  subsequently  bred  from  corn 
tassels  ;  but  at  our  express  desire  she  has  examined  the  mixed  lot,  and  informs  us  that 
she  can  detect  no  difference  of  any  consequence  among  them. 

Testimony  to  the  same  effect  has  been  given  by  Mr.  Glover  (Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  Report  1870,  p.  84)  and  by  Mr.  Riley  (Third  Mis- 
souri Entomological  Report,  p.  105).  Mr.  Trelease  observed  them  eating 
garden  pease  in  Alabama.  A  boll-worm  would  bore  a  hole  into  the  pod 
and  devour  its  whole  contents  before  leaving  it  for  another. 

Of  allied  plants,  the  boll-worm  has  been  observed  to  eat  the  chick-pea 
(Cicer  arietinum)  in  Europe,  the  common  cow-pea  of  the  South,  and  the 
common  string-bean  (Phaseolus  vulgar  is),  and  Erytlirina  herbacea,  a  le- 
guminous plant  common  in  the  South.  M.  J.  Fallou  (Insectoloyie  Agri- 
cole,  1869,  p.  205)  records  Heliothis  as  feeding  upon  the  chick-pea,  lie 
found  the  young  worms  to  feed  upon  the  leaves  and  the  large  ones  to 
bore  into  the  pod.  With  the  cow-pea,  upon  which  Mr.  Trelease  found 
it  feeding  very  abundantly,  and  in  which  the  pod  is  more  fleshy  and  the 
pease  separated  by  lleshy  partitions,  it  often  pursues  a  different  course 
from  that  which  it  takes  with  the  common  garden  pea;  it  often  bores  into 
one  chamber  of  the  pod,  eats  the  seed  in  it,  and  then,  instead  of  cutting 
through  the  partition  to  reach  the  next,  bores  another  hole  from  the  out- 
side. The  same  observation  precisely  was  made  concerning  their  habits 


THE    EGG    OF    THE    BOLL-WOEM   MOTH.  297 

•when  feeding  upon  Erytlirina.  As  to  the  string-beans,  Professor  Riley 
records  that  it  was  found  eating  them  around  Kirkwood,  Mo.,  by  Miss 
Mary  Murtfeldt. 

This  department  has  also  received  specimens  of  the  boll- worm  from  D. 
Landreth  &  Sous,  of  Philadelphia,  as  quite  seriously  infesting  fields  of 
Lima  beans.  The  communication  accompanying  may  prove  of  interest: 

PHILADELPHIA,  PA.,  October  31,  1879. 

SIR  :  By  mail  we  send  you  some  pods  of  Lima  beans  which  have  been  entered,  and 
the  beans  partially  destroyed,  by  a  worm  new  to  ns. 

"We  bad  twenty  acres  growing  on  our  New  Jersey  farm  near  Burlington,  and  have 
suffered  a  loss  of  'i  to  5  per  cent. 

This  is  the  first  season  the  worm  has  appeared,  and  we  send  it,  trusting  that  your 
entomologist  may  be  able  to  tell  us  something  of  its  habits. 
Eespectfully, 

D.  LANDEETH  &  SONS. 
Hon.  W.  G.  LE  Due, 

Commissioner  of  Agriculture. 

The  beans  sent  were  each  pierced  by  one  hole  of  an  eighth  of  an  inch 
or  more  in  diameter,  and  the  contents  in  every  case  had  been  destroyed. 

Of  other  useful  plants  which  the  boll-worm  occasionally  feeds  upon 
we  would  mention  pumpkins  (Cucurbitapepo),  as  recorded  by  Mr.  Glover 
in  the  Department  of  Agriculture  Report  for  1870,  p.  84,  and  red  pep- 
pers (Capsicum  annuuni),  as  recorded  by  G.  H.  French  in  the  Seventh  Re- 
port of  the  State  Entomologist,  of  Illinois,  p.  102.  Mr.  Glover  also  states 
that  "  a  young  boll- worm  was  found  in  the  corolla  of  the  flower  of  a 
squash,  devouring  the  pistil  and  stamens." 

Mr.  French  also  records  the  fact  of  finding  what  he  considered  to  be 
the  boll-wofm  in  the  pods  of  Hibiscus  grandiftorus,  the  large  flowered 
rose  mallow. 

Mrs.  Treat  discovered,  in  the  course  of  her  observations  upon  Heliotliis, 
that  many  individuals  of  the  first  brood  ate  into  the  stems  of  the  garden 
flower  known  as  Gladiolus,  and  not  only  into  the  stems  but  into  the 
flower-buds  also. 

As  regards  its  European  food-plants,  Professor  Riley  quotes  from  M. 
Ch.  Goureau's  Insectes  Nuisibles,  Second  Supplement,  1865,  p.  132,  to  the 
effect  that  it  not  only  infests  the  ears  of  Indian  corn,  but  devours  also 
the  heads  of  hemp  and  the  leaves  of  tobacco  and  of  lucerne  (Medicago 
saliva). 

And  now  let  us  turn  to  the  consideration  of  the  boll- worm  on  cotton. 

THE  EGG. 

The  egg  of  the  boll- worm  moth  differs  in  form  from  that  of  the  cotton- 
worm  moth,  as  shown  in  the  accompanying  figure,  by  its  much  greater" 
diameter  through  from  top  to  bottom,  looking,  as  one  author  aptly  ex- 
presses it,  "  as  though  molded  in  a  tea-cup,  while  the  cotton-worm  egg 
was  molded  in  the  saucer."  The  two  diameters  of  the  egg  are  nearly 
equal  and  are  about  the  same  as  the  greatest  diameter  of  the  egg  of 


298  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

Aletia.    In  color  also  it  differs  from  the  egg  of  Aletia,  the  latter  being 
of  a  delicate  green,  scarcely  distinguishable  from  the  leaf,  while  the 

former  is  nearly  white  and  easily  detected  upon  the 
+  plant.    A  noticeable  feature  of  many  of  these  eggs 

is  an  irregular  reddish-brown  band  near  their  sum- 
FIG.  76.— Egg  of  boll-  mits,  which  gradually  disappears  with  the  devel- 
worm  moth.  Opment  of  the  embryo.  The  sculpturing  of  the  egg 
is  almost  identical  with  that  of  the  cotton-worm  moth.  The  number  of 
eggs  laid  by  the  female  HellotUs  must  approximate  pretty  closely  to  that 
laid  by  the  female  Aletia.  According  to  Mr.  Glover,  a  single  female 
boll-worm  moth  dissected  by  Dr.  John  Gamble,  contained  upwards  of 
500  eggs.  From  their  greater  thickness,  this  number  of  eggs  would  nec- 
essarily take  up  more  room  than  the  same  number  of  Aletia  eggs,  and 
hence  Ave  find  that  the  female  Heliotliis  is  more  robust  than  the  Aletia. 

From  all  accounts,  the  favorite  ovi-positiug  time  is  at  or  shortly  after 
twilight,  when  the  moths  are  flying  in  great  numbers.  Concerning  the 
place  of  deposit  of  the  eggs,  however,  published  accounts  have  differed. 
Mr.  Glover  says : 

The  egg  is  generally  deposited  singly  on  the  outside  of  the  involucel  or  outer  calyx 
of  the  flower  or  young  boll,  where  it  adheres  by  means  of  a  gummy  substance  which 
surrounds  the  egg  when  first  laid,  and  which  hardens  by  exposure  to  the  atmosphere. 
It  has  been  repeatedly  stated  by  planters  that  tho  egg  was  deposited  on  the  stem,  and 
that  the  young  stem  forms  the  first  food  of  the  newly-hatched  caterpillar;  but  after  a 
careful  examination  of  several  hundred  stems  I  found  only  one  egg  placed  in  this  situ- 
ation, and  that  from  the  fact  of  its  being  laid  on  its  side  instead  of  the  base,  had  evi- 
dently been  misplaced. 

Professor  Riley,  in  his  Third  Missouri  Entomological  Eeport  follows 
Mr.  Glover  quite  exactly,  saying:  "  It  is  usually  deposited  singly  on  the 
outside  of  the  involucre  or  outer  calyx  or  young  boll." 

Observations  made  during  the  past  two  years  would  seem  to  disprove 
this  statement  of  Mr.  Glover's  pretty  effectually.  I  found  it  to  be  the 
exception  that  the  eggs  are  laid  upon  the  involucre.  Although  I  have 
found  them  upon  all  parts  of  the  plant,  the  majority  of  them  seem  to  be 
deposited  upon  the  lower  surface  of  the  leaves,  as  is  the  case  with  the 
cotton-worm  eggs.  I  made  a  careful  search  of  many  plants  while  in  the 
cotton  fields  of  Alabama,  and  the  following  note  will  serve  to  indicate 
the  usual  distribution  of  the  eggs.  "  On  one  plant  I  found  eleven  eggs 
which  were  distributed  in  the  following  manner :  one  on  the  involucre, 
two  on  the  stalks  and  eight  on  the  leaves."  Mr.  Trelease  states  in  his 
report  that  he  found  them  upon  the  petioles  and  both  surfaces  of  the 
leaves,  and  upon  the  outer  surface  of  the  involucre,  and  in  a  letter  re- 
marks : 

I  have  found  them  upon  the  Tipper  and  lower  surfaces  of  the  leaves,  and  rarely  upon 
the  involucre.  So  far  I  have  seen  them  nowhere  else,  and  find  that  quite  a  percentage 
is  laid  upon  the  upper  surface  of  the  leaf. 

The  duration  of  the  egg  state  varies  with  the  season  of  the  year,  much 
as  it  does  with  the  egg  of  the  cotton-moth.  We  have  no  data  as  to  the 


THE   YOUNG   BOLL-WORM.  299 

actual  length  of  time  between  the  laying  of  the  egg  and  the  time  of 
hatching,  but  it  probably  approximates  to  Aletia  in  this  respect,  although 
the  time  may  be  somewhat  longer. 

THE  LAEVA. 

As  just  stated,  we  have  disproved  the  old  idea  that  by  far  the  majority 
of  the  eggs  are  laid  upon  calyx  and  involucre,  and  it  consequently  fol- 
lows that  the  received  opinions  as  to  the  newly  hatched  worm  boring 
immediately  into  the  boll  or  flower-bud  must  also  be  thrown  aside.  The 
worm  after  gnawing  through  its  egg-shell  makes  its  first  meal  upon  the 
part  of  the  plant  upon  which  the  egg  was  laid,  be  it  leaf,  stem,  or  invo- 
lucre. Should  it  be  laid  upon  the  leaf,  as  is  usually  the  case,  it  may  be 
three  days  before  the  worm  reaches  the  boll.  Should  they  be  laid  upon 
the  involucre,  the  young  worm  bores  into  the  boll  at  an  earlier  date. 
Mr.  Glover  publishes  what  seems  to  be  a  phenomenal  instance  as  the 
normal  one.  He  says : 

A  boll- worm  which  was  bred  from  an  egg  found  upon  the  involucre  or  "ruffle"  of  a 
flower-bud  grew  to  rather  more  than  a  twentieth  of  an  inch  in  length  by  the  third  day, 
when  it  shed  its  skin,  having  eaten  in  the  mean  time  nothing  but  the  parenchyma,  or 
tender  fleshy  substance  from  the  outside  of  the  calyx.  On  the  fifth  day  it  pierced 
through  the  outer  calyx  and  commenced  feeding  inside.  On  the  sixth  day  it  again 
shed  its  skin,  and  had  increased  to  about  the  tenth  of  an  inch  in  length.  On  the  tenth 
day  it  again  shed  its  skin,  ate  the  interior  of  the  young  flower-bud,  and  had  grown 
much  larger.  On  the  fourteenth  day  for  the  fourth  time  it  shed  its  skin,  attacked  and 
ate  into  a  young  boll,  and  had  increased  to  thirteen-twentieths  of  an  inch  in  length. 
From  this  time  it  ate  nothing  but  the  inside  of  the  boll,  and  on  the  twentieth  day  the 
skin  was  again  shed  and  it  had  grown  to  the  length  of  an  inch  and  one-tenth,  but, 
unfortunately,  died  before  completing  its  final  change. 

The  extreme  slowness  of  growth  during  the  first  six  days  is  evidently 
a  mistake  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Glover  in  measurement,  and,  as  such,  should 
here  be  corrected.  He  makes  the  larva  at  the  end  of  six  days  and  after 
two  molts  one-tenth  of  an  inch  in  length,  whereas,  according  to  our 
measurement,  it  is  usually  nearly,  if  not  quite,  that  length  upon  emerg- 
ing from  the  egg,  and  at  the  end  of  six  days  has  attained  a  very  respect- 
able size.  The  reason  for  quoting  this  paragraph  was  not  only  to  call 
attention  to  the  mistake,  but  also  to  show  the  length  of  time  which  a 
worm  may,  under  certain  circumstances,  feed  upon  the  outside  of  a  boll 
before  piercing  to  the  inside.  As  a  rule,  we  may  safely  say  that  where 
the  egg  is  laid  upon  the  involucre  the  worm  pierces  through  within 
twenty-four  hours  after  hatching. 

The  newly-hatched  boll- worm  walks  like  a  geometrid  larva  or  looper, 
"  a  measuring- worm,"  as  it  is  often  called.  This  is  easily  explained  by 
the  fact  that,  while  in  the  full-grown  worm  the  abdominal  legs  or  pro- 
legs  are  all  nearly  equal  in  length,  in  the  newly-hatched  worm  the  second 
pair  is  slightly  shorter  than  the  third,  and  the  first  pair  is  shorter  and 
slenderer  than  the  second,  a  state  of  things  approaching  that  in  the  full- 
grown  cotton- worm,  though  the  difference  in  size  in  the  former  case  is 


300  EEPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

not  nearly  so  marked  as  in  the  latter.  This  method  of  walking,  the  worm 
loses  with  its  first  or  second  molt.  There  is  nothing  remarkably  char- 
acteristic about  these  young  larvae.  They  seem  to  be  somewhat  thicker 
in  proportion  to  their  lengths  than  do  the  young  cotton- worms,  and  they 
have  not  so  delicate  and  transparent  an  appearance.  Their  heads  are 
black,  and  their  bodies  seem  already  to  have  begun  to  vary  in  color. 
The  body  above  is  furnished  with  sparse,  stiff  hairs,  each  arising  from 
a  tubercle.  I  have  often  watched  the  newly-hatched  boll-worms  while 
in  the  cotton-fields.  When  hatched  from  an  egg  which  had  been  depos- 
ited upon  a  leaf,  they  invariably  made  their  first  meal  on  the  substance 
of  the  leaf  and  then  wandered  about  for  a  longer  or  shorter  space  of  time, 
evidently  seeking  a  boll  or  flower-bud.  It  was  always  interesting  to 
watch  this  seemingly  aimless  search,  the  young  worm  crawling  first  down 
the  leaf  stem  and  then  back,  then  dropping  a  few  inches  by  a  silken 
thread,  and  then  painfully  working  its  way  back  again  until  at  last  it 
found  its  boll  or  bud,  or  fell  to  the  ground,  where  it  was  destroyed  by 
ants. 

Mr.  Trelease  was  instructed  to  report  upon  the  point  of  the  eating  of 
the  leaves  by  the  young  larvae,  and  the  following  is  the  report  of  his  ob- 
servations : 

Very  soon  after  its  exclusion,  the  young  larva  begins  to  feed  upon  the  substance  of 
the  leaf  or  bract,  or  other  organ  on  which  it  finds  itself;  and  when  this  chances  to  be 
a  leaf  or  bract,  it  leaves  the  epidermis  on  the  other  side  for  some  time.  Daring  the 
first  half  day  or  day  of  its  existence  it  feeds  in  this  way,  forming  small,  irregular, 
transparent  spots  in  the  blade  of  the  leaf  or  in  the  bract,  after  which  it  pierces  a 
hole— usually  more  rounded  than  that  first  formed  by  Aletia— through  the  organ. 
The  age  at  which  this  is  done  appears,  from  my  observations,  to  be  earlier  than 
that  at  which  the  caterpillar  pierces  the  leaf;  but  I  find  that  it  differs  greatly  with 
different  individuals,  some  piercing  the  leaf  when  less  than  ten  hours  old,  some  not 
until  they  are  about  two  days  old.  After  this,  if  it  does  not  find  itself  close  to  a 
flower-bud,  immature  fruit,  or  some  other  object  suitable  for  its  food,  the  larva  moves 
about  in  search  of  this  food ;  finding  which,  it  shortly  goes  to  eating.  Whatever  may 
be  its  food,  this  worm,  according  to  my  observations,  always  forms  regular,  round 
openings  in  its  exterior  for  its  own  entrance  or  exit ;  and  these  vary  in  size  with  the 
size  of  the  larva,  being  just  largo  enough  to  allow  the  animal's  body  to  pass  with 
ease.  Another  peculiarity  of  this  larva  is  its  wandering  character,  especially  earlier 
in  the  season  when  feeding  on  the  flower-buds  or  forms  of  cotton ;  for  these,  being 
small,  the  contents  of  each  is  soon  eaten  by  the  worm,  which  necessarily  moves  on 
in  search  of  more  food. 

We  may  safely  say,  then,  that  the  young  larvae  feed  for  a  longer  or 
shorter  space  of  time  upon  the  part  of  the  plant  on  which  they  are 
born,  but  migrate  sooner  or  later  to  flower-bud  or  boll.  That  the  worm 
may  occasionally  attain  full  growth,  having  fed  upon  the  leaves  alone,  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  Mr.  Trelease,  on  May  30,  found  a  partly  grown 
boll- worm  feeding  upon  the  leaves  of  cotton.  At  this  time,  the  forms 
were  very  few  and  very  small.  Comparatively  early  in  the  season, 
when  feeding  upon  buds  or  small  bolls,  a  single  worm  often  does  a  great 


BOLL-WORM   VS.    COTTON   FLOWERS.  301 

amount  of  damage,  proceeding  from  bud  to  bud  or  from  boll  to  boll.    Mr. 
Glover  says : 

The  pistils  and  stamens  of  the  open  flower  are  frequently  found  to  be  distorted  and 
injured  without  any  apparent  cause.  This  has  been  done  by  the  young  boll-worm. 
When  hidden  in  the  unopen  bud,  it  has  eaten  one  side  only  of  the  pistil  and  stamens, 
so  that  when  the  flower  is  open  the  parts  injured  are  distorted  and  maimed,  and  very 
frequently  the  young  flower  falls  without  forming  any  boll  whatever.  In  many  cases, 
however,  the  young  wo  rin  bores  through  the  bottom  of  the  flower  into  the  immature 
boll  before  the  old  flower  falls,  thus  leaving  the  boll  and  involucre,  or  envelope,  still 
adhering  to  the  foot-stalk,  and  the  worm  safely  lodged  in  the  growing  boll.  The 
number  of  buds  destroyed  by  this  worm  is  very  great,  as  they  fall  off  when  quite  small, 
and  are  scarcely  observed  as  they  lie  brown  and  withering  on  the  ground  beneath  the 
plant.  The  instinct  of  the  boll-worm,  however,  teaches  it  to  forsake  a  bud  or  boll 
about  to  fall,  and  either  to  seek  another  healthy  boll  or  to  fasten  itself  to  a  leaf,  on 
which  it  remains  until  it  has  shed  its  skin,  when  it  attacks  another  boll  in  a  similar 
manner,  until  at  length  it  acquires  size  and  strength  sufficient  to  enable  it  to  bore 
into  a  nearly  matured  boll,  the  interior  of  which  is  entirely  destroyed  by  its  attacks, 
as,  should  it  not  be  completely  devoured,  rain  penetrates  through  the  hole  made  by  the 
worm  and  the  cotton  soon  becomes  rotted  and  will  not  ripen.  These  rotted  bolls  serve 
also  as  food  or  shelter  for  numerous  small  insects.  One  thing  is  worthy  of  observation, 
and  that  is,  whenever  a  young  bud  or  boll  is  seen  with  the  involucre  or  outer  calyx 
(by  some  called  the  "  ruffle")  spread  open,  and  of  a  sickly  yellow  color,  it  may  be 
safely  concluded  that  it  has  been  attacked  by  the  boll-worm  and  will  soon  perish 
ish  and  fall  to  the  ground.  When  the  bolls  are  older  they  remain  adhering  to  the 
plant.  If  many  of  these  "  forms"  or  buds  lying  on  the  ground  are  closely  examined, 
the  greater  portion  of  them  will  be  found  to  have  been  previously  pierced  by  the  boll- 
worm  ;  some  few  exceptions  may,  however,  have  been  caused  by  the  minute  punctures 
of  plant  bugs,  by  rains,  or  adverse  atmospheric  influences.  The  buds  injured  by  the 
worm  may  be  readily  distinguished  by  a  minute  hole  where  it  has  entered  and  which, 
when  cut  open,  will  be  found  partially  filled  with  small  black  grains,  something  like 
coarse  gunpowder,  which  is  nothing  but  the  digested  food  after  having  passed  through 
the  body  of  the  young  worm. 

The  destruction  of  the  essential  parts  of  the  flower  before  the  boll 
proper  is  formed,  which  is  spoken  of  in  the  quotation,  is  sometimes  as 
great  a  source  of  loss  as  the  destruction  of  the  maturing  bolls.  The  two 
following  extracts  from  the  notes  of  one  of  the  observers  bear  upon  the 
point : 

August  1. — Several  Heliothis  larvae  found  in  opened  white  flowers,  having  perforated 
the  petals,  and  being  engaged  in  eating  the  anthers  and  stigma.  The  larger  ones  had 
eaten  all  but  the  staminal  tube  and  the  inclosed  style  and  ovary,  and  even  this  tube 
•was  pierced  at  the  base.  *  *  * 

August  4. — Heliolhis  larvae  of  a  reddish  tinge  and  1  to  1.3  cm.  in  length  are  quite 
abundant  on  boll-flowers  and  unopened  buds.  The  latter  they  pierce,  and  thus  cause 
the  involucre  to  flare  and  the  bud  to  fall.  The  former  are  observed  to  have  round 
holes  eaten  in  their  petals,  and  in  several  cases  the  stamens  were  entirely  eaten  out. 

In  one  case,  a  nearly  full-grown  green  larva  was  found  in  a  flower  through  which  it  had 
pierced  near  the  base  (calyx  and  corolla)  a  hole  4  mm.  in  diameter.  Within,  it  had 
eaten  off  stamens  and  stigma,  leaving  the  stamiual  tube  and  its  inclosed  style  and  ovary. 

It  is  quite  a  common  sight  to  see  these  large  green  or  pink  worms  in 
the  flower,  as  also  the  younger  individuals,  the  latter,  however,  usually 
having  penetrated  the  bud  and  forced  the  premature  blossom. 

As  the  boll- worms  increase  in  size,  a  most  wonderful  diversity  of  color 
and  marking  becomes  apparent.  In  color,  different  individuals  will  vary 


302  REPOKT   UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 

from  a  brilliant  green  to  a  deep  pink  or  a  dark  brown,  exhibiting  almost 
every  conceivable  intermediate  stage,  and  from  an  immaculate,  uustriped 
specimen  to  one  with  regular  spots  and  many  stripes.  The  green  worms 
are  more  common  than  those  of  any  other  color ;  but  those  of  varying 
shades  of  pink  er  brown  are  so  abundant  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  fix 
upon  a  type.  Early  in  the  season,  as  will  be  hereafter  shown,  the  pre- 
vailing color  is  green.  A  common  variety  is  light  green  in  color.  Kun- 
ning  from  the  first  ring  back  of  the  head  to  the  posterior  end  of  the  body 
on  each  side  is  a  broad  whitish  line;  just  above  is  a  broad  dusky  line; 
down  the  center  of  the  back  is  another  dusky  line,  or  stripe,  as  it 
should  preferably  be  called;  this  dorsal  stripe  has  a  narrow  white  line 
down  its  center,  and  it  is  bordered  on  each  side  by  a  narrow  white  line. 
Between  the  dusky  dorsal  and  lateral  stripes  run  four  or  five  very 
faint,  wavy,  longitudinal,  white  lines,  so  faint  as  not  to  interfere  with 
the  general  color  of  the  body.  Each  body-ring  has  eight  black  spots, 
which,  upon  being  examined  with  a  lens,  are  seen  to  be  tubercles,  each 
with  a  stiff  hair  upon  its  tip.  These  spots  are  arranged  in  two  transverse 
rows  of  four,  the  spots  in  the  front  row  being  slightly  closer  together  than 
those  in  the  back  row ;  the  outer  spot  of  the  back  row  is  small  and 
placed  nearer  the  front  row. 

Of  these  features  the  most  constant  seems  to  be  the  whitish  stripe  on 
each  side.  When  the  boll-worm  is  brown  these  stripes  assume  a  yellow- 
ish hue.  They  are  shown  in  all  illustrations  of  the  boll-worm  yet  pub- 
lished, and  are  present  in  all  specimens  in  the  department  collection. 
Another  pretty  constant  feature  is  the  relative  position  of  the  tubercles 
just  described.  They  are  not  always  of  a  contrasting  color  to  the  rest 
of  the  back,  and  hence  cannot  always  be  spoken  of  as  spots.  When 
they  are  not  discernible  as  spots,  however,  an  examination  with  the  lens 
shows  them  still  present  as  tubercles,  each  surmounted  by  a  hair.  This 
point  affords  apparently  a  good  and  reliable  means  of  distinguishing  the 
young  boll-worm  from  the  young  cotton-worm,  which  otherwise  might 
prove  a  matter  of  difficulty  during  the  earlier  stages  and  in  the  early 
part  of  the  year,  before  black  cotton-worms  are  to  be  found.  In  the 
cotton- worm  the  two  middle  spots  of  each  of  the  two  rows  of  four  are  of 
the  same  distance  apart,  so  as  to  form  the  four  corners  of  a  rectangle. 
In  the  boll-worm,  however,  the  two  middle  spots  of  the  hind  row  are 
more  widely  separated  than  the  corresponding  spots  of  the  front  row. 
This  distinction  may  be  recognized  at  a  glance,  when  the  eye  has  become 
accustomed  to  it.  The  dusky  dorsal  stripe  is  often  wanting,  as  also  are 
the  dusky  lateral  stripes,  and,  as  just  stated,  the  spots  are  often  indis- 
cernible. 

Mrs.  Treat  seems  to  have  noticed  a  uniformity  of  color  as  between 
individuals  of  the  same  brood,  and  a  diversity  as  between  those  of  dif- 
ferent broods.  She  says: 

I  did  not  think  that  this  green  larva  that  eats  into  the  pease  and  stalks  of  corn,  be- 
fore the  latter  arc  half  grown,  was,  as  you  inform  me,  this  same  striped  boll-worm 
that  eats  into  the  ears  of  corn.  *  *  * 


PREDACEOUS    HABITS    OF    BOLL-WORM.  303 

Such  uniformity  depending  upon  brood,  or  diversity  from  diversity 
of  brood  or  food-plant,  can  by  no  means  be  laid  down  as  a  rule.  The 
early  brood,  however,  seems  to  consist  almost  entirely  of  green  individ- 
uals, and  those  feeding  upon  other  plants  than  corn  and  cotton  are  more 
usually  green  also.  The  pink  individuals  are  more  common  upon  cotton 
and  the  roasting-ears  of  corn.  As  Mrs.  Treat  has  stated,  a  green  worm 
may  turn  brownish  after  the  later  molts,  but  ha  (/"-grown  brown  worms 
are  very  abundant  in  the  bolls  of  cotton.  In  this  connection,  Mr.  Glover 
states : 

These  variations  of  color  are  not  easily  accounted  for,  as  several  caterpillars  changed 
color  without  any  apparent  cause,  being  fed  upon  the  same  food  and  in  the  same  box 
•with  others.  Several  planters  assert  that  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  season  the  green 
•worms  are  found  in  the  greatest  number,  while  the  dark  brown  varieties  are  seen 
later  in  the  autumn,  as  we  know  is  also  the  case  with  the  caterpillars  of  the  cotton- 
worm. 

As  already  noted  in  Chapter  VI,  of  Part  I,  the  larva  of  Heliotliis  has 
one  redeeming  character  in  its  occasional  cannibalistic  and  predaceous 
turn  of  mind.  Boll-worms,  when  in  confinement,  have  the  habit,  in 
common  with  other  lepidopterous  larvae,  of  devouring  one  another.  All 
through  the  past  summer  larvae  were  being  sent  to  the  department  from 
the  South,  but  whenever  more  than  one  boll-worm  were  mailed  in  the 
same  box,  one  only  would  reach  us  alive,  all  the  others  having  been 
destroyed.  This  was  the  case  even  when  the  box  was  filled  with  cotton- 
leaves  and  bolls  or  corn-leaves.  It  might,  however,  be  said  that  the 
food  dried  up  on  the  journey,  and  that  hence  they  were  driven  to  destroy 
one  another;  but  the  fact  is  that  even  when  confined  inbreeding  cages, 
where  fresh  food  was  always  at  hand  and  where  the  conditions  were 
made  as  natural  as  possible,  they  seemed  as  hungry  as  ever  for  their 
companions,  and  it  was  impossible  to  rear  more  than  one  in  the  same 
box  or  cage. 

Still  more  conclusive,  however,  and  of  extreme  interest,  is  the  fact 
that  Mr.  Trelease  actually  saw,  upon  several  occasions,  on  the  plant 
and  undisturbed,  large  boll-worms  catch  smaller  ones,  which  they  de- 
voured "  hoof  and  hide,"  or  simply  pierced  the  skin  with  their  mandi- 
bles so  that  the  juice  could  be  sucked,  the  refuse  being  dropped. 

In  addition  to  this  we  have  the  fact  fully  established  during  the  past 
season  that  the  boll- worm,  in  a  state  of  nature,  preys  more  or  less  fre- 
quently upon  the  chrysalis  of  the  cotton- worm.  We  have  already  quoted, 
in  an  earlier  part  of  the  report,  Mr.  Trelease's  observations  upon  this 
point,  but  it  seems  eminently  proper  that  they  should  be  repeated  here: 

Owing  to  its  tough  integument,  the  pupa  of  Aletia  seems  to  be  freer  from  insect 
attack  than  the  larva  is,  yet  even  its  hard  skin  does  not  always  save  it.  About  the 
middle  of  August  I  first  noticed  what  appeared  to  be  an  anomalous  preparation  for 
pupation  in  the  boll-worm  (Heliothis  armigera),  for  I  found  several  full-grown  larvae  of 
this  species  with  leaves  closely  webbed  around  them,  precisely  as  Aletia  webs  up  be- 
fore changing  to  a  pupa.  An  examination  of  one  of  these  leaves,  however,  showed 
uie  that  the' boll- worms  had  not  webbed  them  about  themselves,  but  had  insinuated 


304  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

themselves  into  leaves  folded  arid  pre-occupied  by  Alelia,  the  latter  having  already 
passed  into  the  pupa  state,  and  they  had  done  this  for  the  express  purpose  of  feeding 
on  these  pupae.  Many  cases  of  this  sort  were  seen. 

In  the  specimens  sent  to  the  department,  the  full-grown  boll- worm 
was  found  entirely  within  tlie  folded  leaf  and  the  hind  end  of  the  body 
of  the  chrysalis  was  eaten  into ;  and  it  certainly  would  be  difficult  to 
account  for  this  on  any  other  grounds  than  those  taken  in  the  quota- 
tion. We  find  also  in  the  same  report  the  following : 

No  lepidopterous  enemies  of  Aletia  larvae  were  observed  by  myself,  but  Dr.  Lock- 
wood,  of  Carlowville,  Ala.,  says  that  a  number  of  years  ago  he  saw  a  large  green 
larva  devouring  numbers  of  cotton- caterpillars.  From  what  we  know  of  the  habits 
of  the  boll-worm  (Heliotliis  armigera)  it  seems  not  unlikely  that  these  larvae  may  have 
belonged  to  that  species. 

Judging  from  the  data  at  hand,  the  duration  of  the  larva  state  of 
Heliotliis,  or,  in  other  words,  the  worm  state,  seems  to  vary  from  eighteen 
to  twenty -four  days  in  the  cotton-belt,  depending  much  upon  the  climate, 
the  state  of  the  weather,  and  the  food  plant.  When  full-grown  it  trans- 
forms to  a  chrysalis,  with  very  different  preliminaries  from  those  which 
prepare  the  cotton-worm  for  pupation. 

THE  CHRYSALIS. 

Almost  all  of  the  statements  regarding  the  pupation  of  the  boll-worm 
have  been  to  the  effect  that  the  full-grown  worm  descends  into  the 
ground  to  the  depth  of  several  inches,  and  there  forms  itself  an  oval 
cocoon  of  gravel  and  earth,  cemented  together  by  its  gummy  silk. 

Prof.  G.  H.  French,  of  Illinois,  has  studied  the  chrysalis  of  Heliothis 
carefully  of  late,  and  sums  up  his  observations  as  follows :  * 

In  digging  for  the  chrysalis  around  the  corn-hills,  I  found  that  instead  of  their  oc- 
cupying an  oval  earthen  cocoon,  as  has  usually  been  written  of  them,  and  as  they 
apparently  do  in  the  breeding  box,  they  were  down  in  the  ground  from  five  to  six 
inches  below  the  surface,  in  a  hole  about  a  third  of  an  inch  in  diameter,  reaching  from 
the  chrysalis  to  the  top  of  the  ground,  where  it  was  covered  with  a  thin  film  of  dirt 
from  an  eighth  to  a  quarter  of  an  inch  thick.  This  hole  was  larger  at  the  bottom  than 
at  the  top,  apparently  so  as  to  give  full  motion  to  the  chrysalis,  and  usually  bent  in 
its  course,  so  the  lower  part  would  have  an  inclination  of  perhaps  forty-live  degrees. 
At  the  bottom  would  be  found  the  chrysalis,  the  small  end  downward  and  the  head 
upward.  In  one  case  I  found  the  hole  so  bent  that  the  chrysalis  occupied  a  horizontal 
position.  The  hole  was  smooth  inside,  and  was,  perhaps,  made  so  by  cementing  the 
earth  together,  but  of  that  I  could  not  tell,  for  the  whole  ground  was  moist,  though 
dry  enough  to  be  firm. 

In  reference  to  these  observations  of  Professor  French,  Mr.  Trelease 
says,  in  a  recent  letter: 

In  deep  breeding-jars,  with  four  or  five  inches  of  loose  soil,  I  found  that  the  larvae 
of  Heliothis  went  several  inches  from  the  surface  before  forming  their  cocoon,  but  did 
not  notice  a  passage  leading  down.  As  I  did  not  notice  very  closely,  such  a  tube  may 
have  been  there,  but  I  think  if  so  I  should  have  seen  some  trace  of  it.  In  all  cases 
there  was  a  thin  film  of  silk.  In  the  field  I  saw  numbers  plowed  up,  but  did  not  dig 
for  any  with  care.  Of  course  the  plowing  would  have  destroyed  such  a  tube,  but  I 
sometimes  found  the  silk  about  the  pupa,  though  always  more  or  less  torn. 

•Seventh  Report  of  the  State  Entomologist  of  Illinois,  1877,  p.  105. 


DESCRIPTION    OF    THE    CHRYSALIS.  305 

The  rearing  of  boll- worms  at  the  department  would  seem  to  show  that 
in  loose,  friable  earth  the  passage  made  by  the  worms  in  their  descent 
becomes  obliterated  by  the  falling  together  of  the  earth  behind  them; 
but  it  seems  probable  that,  in  compact  soil,  any  larva  entering  the 
ground  would  leave  a  round  passage  behind  it.  A  thin  film  of  silk  has 
always  been  noticed  lining  the  cell  in  which  the  chrysalis  is  found. 

In  addition  to  the  prominent  distinguishing  point  that  the  chrysalis 
of  Aletia  is  invariaby  found  only  above  ground,  and  is  normally  found 
in  rolled  leaf  and  slight  cocoon,  while  the  chrysalis  of  Heliothis  is  in- 
variably found  only  below  the  surface  of  the  ground,  normally  in  a 
smooth  shell,  lined  with  a  thin  film  of  silk,  it  may  be  well  to  mention 
the  characteristic  points  which  distinguish  the  chrysalides  themselves. 

The  pupa  of  Heliothis  is  reddish  or  light  brown, 
and  polished,  and  the  pupa  of  Aletia  dark  brown, 
sometimes  almost  black,  with  the  lower  margin 
of  the  abdominal  rings,  4  to  6,  of  a  reddish-yel- 
low or  saflron  color;  it  is  not  polished,  but  has  a 
greasy  appearance.  The  pupa  of  Heliothis  is  rather 
stout,  and  the  last  segment  is  rounded  and  fur- 
nished with  two  slender,  straight  spines.  The 
pupa  of  Aletia,  contrary  to  this,  is  quite  slender, 
especially  the  abdomen;  the  last  segment  is  not 
rounded,  and  its  tip  is  prolonged  into  a  tail-like  ap- 
pendage, which  bears  at  the  tip  4  spines,  the  ends 
of  which  are  curved  so  as  to  form  a  loop;  four  sim-  Fl(,  7?  _posterior  end 
ilar  spines  are  placed  transversely  in  a  row,  a  little  of  chrysalis  of  Reiio- 
in  front  of  the  terminal  4  hooks;  this  makes  eight  this  from  bel(m- 
spines  for  Aletia  and  only  two  for  Heliothis;  the  stigmata  or  breathing- 
holes  are  rather  conspicuous  on  the  pupa  of  Heliothis,  and  sccarcely 
noticeable  on  the  pupae  of  Aletia. 

We  insert  a  detailed  description  of  the  chrysalis  of  the  boll- worm,  for 
the  benefit  of  those  interested : 

HeliotMs  armigera. — Pupa:  Length,  about  20mm;  color,  reddish  brown,  darker 
to  wards  the  head ;  polished.  The  following  particulars  will  be  noticed  when  exam- 
ined under  the  microscope :  the  head,  which  narrows  in  the  region  of  the  maxillai  to  a 
rounded,  somewhat  elevated  ridge,  is  covered  with  minute  and  rather  indistinct 
granulations,  and  has  near  the  front  a  few  shallow,  transverse,  impressed  lines,  which, 
however,,  do  not  entirely  cross  from  one  side  to  the  other ;  there  are  also  a  few  irregu- 
lar impressions  on  the  head  behind  the  eye,  and  about  midway  between  the  posterior 
angle  of  the  eye  and  the  posterior  margin  of  the  head  is  an  impressed  puncture  from 
which  a  very  short  stiff  hair  arises,  and  another  shallow  impression  somewhat  in  the 
shape  of  a  V  may  be  found  at  the  middle  near  the  posterior  margin ;  the  sculpture  of 
the  thoracic  segments  is  somewhat  different  from  that  of  the  head ;  the  whole  surface  is 
closely  and  very  finely  faceted,  and  quite  a  number  of  irregular,  shallow,  impressed 
transverse  lines  run  over  the  whole  surface ;  the  3d  ring  is  very  much  wrinkled ;  the 
surface  of  the  abdominal  rings  is  similarly  sculptured ;  the  front  margin  of  rings,  4-7, 
is  coarsely  punctured;  the  4th  has  only  few  of  these  punctures,  but  on  the  other  three 
rings  they  are  quite  numerous  around  the  whole  margin  ;  the  front  portion  of  these 
punctures  is  deep,  and  they  run  out  posteriorly  more  or  less  into  a  shallow,  channel- 
20  C  I 


306  REPOET  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

like  impression ;  the  posterior  margin  is  covered  quite  regularly  with  slightly  elevated, 
darker  brown  granules  of  different  forms ;  some  are  square,  others  five,  and  others 
six-sided ;  the  other  rings,  except  the  last,  have  nothing  peculiar  in  their  structure ; 
the  last  segment  is  Lluntly  rounded,  and  furnished  at  the  ends  with  two  quite  long, 
black,  slender  spines,  which  at  their  apical  third  are  whitish,  faintly  bent  upwards, 
with  their  tips  sometimes  slightly  twisted  and  directed  downward ;  ventrally,  this 
ring  and  the  one  before  it  have  each  a  short,  longitudinal  impressed  line ;  the  cir- 
cumference of  the  stigmata  is  elevated,  dark  brown,  with  the  center  of  a  sandy  color 
and  spongy  texture ;  the  cases  of  the  wings,  legs,  and  antennae  are  covered  with 
shallow  facets. 

THE  MOTH. 

After  the  figure  of  the  moth  on  Plate  II,  an  additional  extended  descrip- 
tion will  be  unnecessary.  It  is  a  very  variable  species,  and  it  is  owing  to 
this  fact  that  American  specimens  were  so  long  considered  to  form  a 
species  distinct  from  the  European.  In  size  the  variation  is  not  great, 
the  smaller  individuals  having  an  expanse  of  wing  of  an  inch  and  three 
eighths,  and  the  larger  ones  expanding  an  inch  and  three  quarters. 
The  general  color  of  the  body  and  upper  wings  varies  from  a  light  gray 
tinged  with  olive  green  to  a  rich  yellow  gray,  almost  tawny.  In  some 
specimens  the  markings  of  the  fore  wings  are  almost  obliterated,  and 
in  others  they  appear  with  great  distinctness.  On  the  hind  wings  there 
is  much  variation  in  the  size  of  the  light  spot  within  the  dark  band ; 
in  some  specimens  it  is  not  discernible,  and  in  others  its  length  equals 
half  the  breadth  of  the  wing.  The  width  of  the  black  band  of  the  pos- 
terior wings  also  varies  greatly.  The  moth  is  so  very  different  from 
Aletia  that  even  a  hasty  glance  at  the  plates  will  enable  the  planter  to 
distinguish  them.  The  most  prominent  distinguishing  feature,  and  one 
that  can  be  recognized  at  a  glance,  is  the  broad  black  band  on  the  hind 
wings  of  the  boll- worm  moth.  When  at  rest  the  latter  does  not  tightly 
close  its  wings  roof-shaped  over  its  back,  as  does  the  cotton- worm  moth, 
but  holds  them  slightly  open,  so  that  the  black  band  is  plainly  seen. 

The  moths  begin  to  fly  shortly  after  sundown.  During  the  day,  when 
disturbed,  they  fly  out  with  the  quick  darting  motion  peculiar  to  most 
noctuids  under  such  circumstances — a  flight  almost  precisely  like  that 
of  the  cotton-moth.  At  night,  however  their  flight  is  freer  and  more 
sustained.  As  has  been  noted  of  the  adult  Aletia,  these  moths  feed  at 
night  upon  the  nectar  secreted  by  the  glands  of  the  cotton-plant,  the 
cow  pea,  the  greater  coffee-weed,  and  probably  upon  others.  Their 
methods  of  feeding  are  almost  precisely  like  those  of  the  cotton- 
moth,  the  antennae  being  kept  in  constant  vibration.  They  also,  upon 
occasion,  hover  before  a  gland,  steadying  themselves  by  their  fore  legs- 
When  at  rest  and  sucking  nectar,  they  do  not,  as  before  stated,  fold  the 
wings  like  Aletia,  but  keep  them  slightly  raised  and  partly  open.  We 
have  not  heard  of  this  moth  being  found  to  feed  upon  fruit  as  Aletia 
does,  though  it  is  probable  that  this  may  occur,  as  the  tip  of  proboscis 
is  spined  in  a  somewhat  similar  manner. 


THE  EARLY  BROODS.  307 

THE  NUMBER  OF  BROODS. 

The  chrysalis  of  the  boll- worm  usually  gives  forth  the  perfect  moth  in 
early  May  in  the  more  southern  portions  of  the  cotton-belt.  The  eggs 
of  these  first  moths  are  for  the  most  part  laid  on  the  leaves  of  corn, 
though  occasionally  one  is  deposited  upon  the  just-appearing  cotton 
plant,  and  others  are  laid  upon  the  other  food-plants  to  be  found.  By 
far  the  greater  majority  are  laid  upon  the  corn  leaves  j  and  it  is  a  rare 
occurrence  to  find  a  boll- worm  upon  cotton  in  the  months  of  May  and 
June.  The  individuals  of  this  first  brood  of  HeliotMs  upon  corn  are 
called,  in  many  parts  of  the  South,  "  terminal  bud  worms,"  the  reason 
for  which  will  shortly  be  shown. 

The  newly  hatched  larvae  begin  feeding  at  once  upon  the  corn  leaves 
upon  which  they  were  born,  and  gnaw  many  small  irregular  holes 
through  them,  giving  them  the  appearance  of  having  been  riddled  by  a 
charge  of  small  shot.  Upon  these  external  leaves  of  corn  they  may  be 
found  for  some  time,  specimens  upwards  of  half  of  an  inch  in  length 
having  been  collected  May  21.  As  they  increase  in  size  they  progress 
downward  into  the  closely  folded  leaf  and,  sooner  or  later,  reach  the 
tender  terminal  leaves  or  bud,  where  they  do  a  very  destructive  work. 

The  plants  thus  infested  may  be  readily  recognized  by  the  riddled  ap- 
pearance of  the  larger  leaves.  When  such  a  stalk  is  found,  if  the  leaves, 
beginning  with  the  outermost,  be  stripped  oft'  nearly  to  the  bases  of  their 
sheaths,  a  quantity  of  brown,  dry  excrement  will  be  found,  increasing 
in  quantity  as  the  center  of  the  plant  is  approached,  until  at  last  the 
usually  pale  green  worm  is  reached,  either  within  the  sheath  of  a  leaf 
or  in  a  cavity  eaten  into  the  closely  rolled  terminal  leaves.  When  full 
grown,  it  gnaws  a  circular  hole  through  the  leaves  directly  outwards 
from  the  point  where  it  has  been  feeding  and  falls  to  the  ground,  where 
it  transforms  to  a  chrysalis,  as  before  described. 

It  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  usual*  amount  of  damage  done  by  the 
first  brood,  as  it  differs  so  much  in  different  localities.  It  seems,  how- 
ever, never  to  be  alarmingly  great,  on  account  of  the  comparatively 
small  numbers.  Observations  on  a  small  scale  in  Alabama  showed 
about  one  plant  in  forty  to  be  infested  by  them. 

The  second  brood  makes  its  appearance  in  Alabama  from  the  first  to 
the  middle  of  June.  The  eggs  are,  as  before,  for  the  most  part  laid  upon 
the  corn  leaves.  Some  few  are  laid  upon  cotton — more,  usually,  than  is 
the  case  with  the  first  brood.  The  young  larvae  feed  upon  the  leaves  as 
before  and  upon  the  tassels.  As  they  approach  full  growth  they  are 
found  within  the  young  ears,  feeding  upon  the  silk,  the  milky  kernels  as 
fast  as  they  appear,  and  upon  the  tender  cob.  Upon  reaching  full  size 
they  bore  through  the  shuck  and  fall  to  the  ground.  The  moths  of  this 
second  brood  may  be  seen  flying  in  considerable  numbers  in  the  early 
part  of  July. 

It  is  the  next,  the  third  brood  proper,  which  does  most  damage  to 


308  EEPOKT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

corn.  This  is  called  the  " corn- worm,"  the  " ear- worm,"  the  "tassel- 
worm."  About  the  1st  of  July  the  eggs  are  laid,  probably  near  the  end 
of  the  husk  of  corn.  Very  few  eggs  are  laid  upon  cotton  growing  in  the 
same  field.  The  larvae  feed  upon  the  silk  and  tender  grains  near  the 
ends  of  the  ears,  destroying  many  ears  and  rendering  many  others 
unfit  for  use.  It  is  a  noticeable  fact  that,  while  the  individuals  of  the 
two  earlier  broods  have  for  the  most  part  varied  little  in  color,  being 
chiefly  of  a  pale  green,  this  third  brood  consists  of  worms  of  the  various 
shades  of  green,  pink,  and  rose.  These  larvae  attain  full  growth  prob- 
ably in  the  shortest  time  of  any  of  the  broods,  and  boring  through  the 
husks  fall  to  the  ground  to  pupate  as  before. 

By  the  1st  of  August  or  thereabouts,  when  the  time  for  a  fourth  brood 
has  arrived,  the  ears  of  corn  have  begun  to  harden,  while  cotton  bolls 
and  forms  are  very  plentiful.  Instinct  teaches  the  moths  of  the  third 
brood  to  lay  their  eggs  upon  cotton  instead  of  upon  corn  as  their  parents 
have  done.  We  have  mentioned  the  fact  that  a  few  worms  are  to  be 
found  upon  cotton  previous  to  this  time.  An  occasional  individual  will 
be  found  to  have  attained  his  growth  on  cotton  in  May,  before  a  flower- 
bud  has  appeared,  and  which  has  evidently  fed  entirely  upon  cotton 
leaves. 

Mr.  G.  W.  Hazard,  of  Eutledge,  Ala.,  makes  the  statement:  "Bud- 
worms  injure  the  cotton  while  very  young,  in  cool  wet  springs,  generally 
in  the  last  of  April  and  through  May." 

Mr.  Trelease  found  the  first  larvae  eating  the  flower-buds  or  forms  as 
early  as  June  11 ;  but  very  few  were  found  from  this  time  on  until  the 
appearance  of  the  fourth  brood  upon  cotton,  thus  demonstrating  plainly 
that  a  corn  diet  is  much  preferred  so  long  as  certain  tender  portions  can 
be  obtained. 

The  habits  of  this  fourth  brood  have  already  been  given  in  the  general 
remarks  concerning  the  boll- worm  upon  cotton.  It  is  by  far  the  most 
destructive  brood.  About  the  1st  of  September  the  moths  of  this  brood 
are  to  be  seen  in  great  numbers  at  night  sucking  the  nectar  of  cotton, 
cassia,  and  cow-pea. 

The  fifth  brood  begins  early  in  September,  and  is  also  confined  to  cot- 
ton. In  all  but  the  most  southern  portions  of  the  cotton-belt  this  brood 
appears  normally  to  be  the  last,  its  chrysalides  living  through  the  win- 
ter in  their  underground  cells.  With  an  exceptionally  fine  season  it 
seems  probable  that  there  may  be  another  brood,  but  upon  this  point 
we  have,  as  yet,  no  evidence. 

These  remarks  upon  the  number  of  broods  are  made  from  observa- 
tions the  present  year  in  Central  Alabama,  and  the  following  facts  must 
be  taken  into  consideration :  that  the  observations  were  limited  geograph- 
ically to  a  single  point,  central,  it  is  true,  but  were  unconfirmed  by  ob- 
servations from  other  points.  Moreover,  1879  was  by  no  means  a  bad 
worm  year.  From  opposite  extremes  of  the  cotton-belt  we  should  ex- 
pect to  find  variation  in  opposing  directions  from  this  as  an  average.  In 


HIBERNATION.  309 

years  when  the  worms  were  very  numerous  we  should  expect  to  find 
them  infesting  cotton  at  a  period  earlier  than  that  which  we  have  des- 
ignated, and  where  corn  is  not  grown  in  the  vicinity,  they  probably  feed 
upon  cotton  from  the  first  appearance  of  the  flower-buds.  These  points 
will  account  for  the  fact  of  the  frequent  early  reports  of  the  ravage  of 
the  boll- worm  in  cotton. 

The  same  difficulty  also  arises  in  ascertaining  the  precise  number  of 
broods  of  the  boll-worm  that  was  found  with  the  cotton-worm.  Some 
moths  issuing  from  winter  quarters  later  than  others,  or  failing  so  soon 
to  find  a  suitable  place  of  deposit  for  their  eggs,  will  lay  their  eggs  later 
than  others.  Some  larvae,  moreover,  may,  by  surrounding  circumstances, 
fail  to  develop  as  fast  as  others.  These  and  other  points  combined  start 
an  irregularity  of  the  broods,  the  tendency  of  which  is  to  continually 
increase  rather  than  to  diminish,  until  in  the  later  generations  upon  cot- 
ton we  may  find  them  in  all  four  stages  at  once — eggs,  larvae  of  all  sizes, 
chrysalides,  and  moths.  The  number  and  relative  appearances  of  the 
broods  normally,  however,  we  believe  to  be  that  which  we  have  given. 

The  boll- worm  disappears  in  the  fall  before  the  cotton-worm  does. 
Mr.  GL  W.  Smith-Vaniz,  of  Canton,  Miss.,  gathered  eggs  from  one  of 
which  a  larva  hatched  August  30.  It  became  a  chrysalis  September  22, 
and  passedthe  winter  in  this  state,  issuing  as  a  moth  May  14.  Another 
brood  of  the  cotton-caterpillars  was  reared  after  this  boll-worm  went 
into  winter  quarters. 

In  his  Third  Missouri  Entomological  Eeport,  p.  107,  Professor  Eiley 
makes  the  statement: 

Most  of  the  inotha  issue  in  the  fall  and  hibernate  as  such,  but  some  of  them  pass  the 
winter  in  the  chrysalis  state  and  do  not  issue  till  the  following  spring.  I  have  known 
them  to  issue,  in  this  latitude  (38£°  N. ),  after  the  1st  of  November,  when  no  frost  had 
previously  occurred. 

It  may  be  true  that  Heliotliis  occasionally  hibernates  as  a  moth.  No 
instance  of  such  hibernation  has,  however,  come  under  our  notice,  nor 
do  we  find  any  other  statement  of  this  fact  than  this  of  Professor  Eiley's, 
just  quoted.  It  is  certain  that  the  insect  normally  hibernates  in  the 
chrysalis  state,  and  that  if  a  hibernating  moth  is  found  it  is  an  excep- 
tional occurrence. 

Many  of  the  noctuida?  hibernate  as  moths,  and  some,  as,  for  instance, 
the  army  worm  of  the  north  (HeliopMla  unipuncta,  Haworth),  are  sup- 
posed to  winter  either  in  the  moth  or  chrysalis  state.  The  latter  point 
is  not  yet  definitely  settled,  however,  and  even  if  it  were  it  would 
simply  create  a  precedent,  not  necessarily  a  probability,  in  favor  of  a 
dual  hibernation  of  Heliothis. 

INFLUENCE  OF  WEATHER. 

It  seems  to  be  a  pretty  generally-settled  point  among  planters,  so  far 
as  we  can  ascertain,  that  the  boll-worm  is  influenced  by  the  weather  in 
a  similar  manner  to  Aletia;  that  is  to  say,  that  they  flourish  best  in  wet 


310  EEPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

seasons,  and  in  dry  sunshiny  weather  do  least  damage.  The  testimony 
on  this  point  is  hardly  as  unanimous  as  with  the  cotton-worm,  but  it  is 
sufficiently  so  to  enable  us  with  justice  to  make  the  general  statement. 
As  to  the  causes  which  produce  this  result,  we  can  do  no  better  than  to 
refer  the  reader  to  the  discussion  upon  this  point  in  chapter  V  of  the 
previous  Part.  Mr.  Trelease  says  in  this  connection : 

Like  the  cotton-caterpillar,  the  boll-worm  is  more  abundant  in  wet  than  in  dry  places ; 
at  least,  such  was  my  experience,  and  it  is  also  said  to  do  better  in  wet  than  in  dry 
seasons.  This  is  readily  explained  by  the  hostility  of  ants,  which  are  more  abund- 
ant in  dry  than  in  wet  places,  and  in  fair  than  in  rainy  seasons. 

Early  in  June  several  half-grown  "  bud- worms"  were  collected  on  Indian  corn  and 
transferred  to  cotton-plants  with  a  view  to  watching  their  actions.  Care  was  taken 
to  place  them  upon  plants  on  which  there  were  no  ants.  Seating  myself  beside  them, 
I  awaited  developments.  At  first  they  evinced  no  desire  to  do  more  than  conceal 
themselves  beneath  the  leaves  from  the  glare  of  the  sun.  But  it  was  not  long  before 
a  stray  ant  appeared  on  the  plant,  and,  finding  the  larva,  proceeded  to  run  round  and 
round  it,  biting  it  whenever  it  could. 

Soon,  however,  finding  that  unaided  it  could  do  little,  the  ant  left  the  plant,  and, 
after  watching  it  a  short  time,  I  lost  sight  of  it ;  but  in  a  few  minutes  it  returned  ac- 
companied by  several  others  of  the  same  species.  In  a  little  while  the  worm  was  so 
worried  that  it  fell  from  the  plant,  and  was  soon  killed  and  carried  off  by  its  tor- 
mentors, which  followed  it  to  the  ground. 

Several  times  I  saw  this  repeated,  the  boll- worm  being  killed  in  each  case  within  an 
hour  after  the  time  when  they  were  placed  on  the  cotton.  The  black  ant  was  also 
seen  to  kill  these  larvae  upon  several  occasions,  and  once  or  twice  when  the  worms  had 
not  been  interfered  with  by  me. 

Mr.  Lyman,  in  Department  of  Agriculture  report  for  1866,  says  that 
many  eggs  of  the  boll-worm  moth  are  destroyed  by  ants. 

The  theory  of  the  ants  influencing  the  comparative  abundance  of 
worms  in  wet  and  dry  weather  is,  as  we  have  said  before,  an  extremely 
plausible  one  if  its  basis  be  correct.  There  cannot  be  the  slightest 
doubt  but  that  ants  abound  upon  dry  soil  rather  than  upon  that  which 
is  moist,  and  in  dry,  sunshiny  weather  rather  than  in  rainy  weather;  nor 
can  there  be  the  slightest  doubt  but  that  many  species  destroy  both  cotton 
and  boll  worms.  Then  the  theory  will  hold  just  so  far  as  this  destruction 
goes — just  to  the  extent  that  the  ants  kill  the  worms.  The  fact  that 
there  is  a  slight  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  influence  of  the  weather 
can  then  be  easily  explained  by  the  comparative  abundance  of  ants  in 
different  localities.  The  theory  does  not,  however,  entirely  account  for 
facts  as  observed,  but  will  have  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  nectar- 
gland  theory,  as  put  forth  in  Part  I,  and  also  with  the  facts  of  the  su- 
perior nourishing  power  of  a  tender  and  succulent  plant,  as  compared 
with  one  dry  and  dwarfed  from  drought. 


CHAPTER   III. 

REMEDIES. 
NATURAL  REMEDIES. 

The  remarks  made  in  Chapter  VI,  of  Part  I,  concerning  the  efficacy  of 
insectivorous  birds  and  of  predaceous  insects  will  apply  equally  well 
here.  Strange  to  say,  but  one  parasite  upon  Heliothis  has  been  found. 
This  was  bred  from  a  chrysalis  received  September  15, 1879,  and  proved 
to  be  TacUna  aletiae.  (See  Chap.  VI,  Part  I.) 

Professor  Eiley,  in  a  foot  note  in  his  fourth  Missouri  report,  mentions 
Heliothis  armigera  as  being  among  the  species  from  which  he  had  bred 
Tachina  anonyma.  (For  the  habits  of  the  Tachina  flies  see  Chapter  VI, 
Part  I.) 

As  to  actual  observations  upon  birds,  Mr.  Glover  says : 

Insectivorous  birds  also  serve  as  very  useful  agents  in  the  diminution  of  the  boll- 
worm.  In  proof  of  this  fact  I  will  state  that  I  have  seen  a  king-bird,  or  bee-martiu, 
chase  and  capture  a  boll-worm  moth  not  ten  paces  from  where  I  stood,  and  which  I 
was  in  pursuit  of  at  the  same  time ;  also,  that  some  young  mocking-birds,  kept  in 
their  nest  near  an  open  window,  were  fed  daily  by  their  parents  with  insects,  among 
which  were  quantities  of  the  boll- worm  moth,  as  was  proved  by  the  ground  undei- 
neath  being  strewn  with  their  dissevered  wings. 

It  will  be  well  to  reconsult  the  list  of  birds  given  in  the  chapter  above 
referred  to  in  this  connection. 

As  to  predaceous  insect  enemies,  we  have  just  referred  in  the  last 
chapter  to  the  most  effective — the  ants — and  further  discussion  will  be 
unnecessary.  Of  the  others,  those  doing  most  good  will  probably  be  the 
wasps,  the  asilus  flies,  the  devil's  coach -horses,  the  lady-bird  larvae,  and 
the  golden-eyed  lace- wing  fly  larvae.  The  ground-beetles  will  play  a 
more  important  part,  in  all  probability,  in  destroying  the  boll- worms 
than  they  do  in  destroying  the  cotton- worms,  on  account  of  the  former 
descending  into  the  ground  to  pupate. 

Mr.  Glover  gives  an  account  of  a  spider  which  is  said  to  destroy  the 
boll-worm,  in  the  following  words : 

Another  description  of  a  small  spider,  about  the  tenth  of  an  inch  in  length,  of  a  light 
drab  color,  with  two  or  more  dark  spots  on  its  back,  was  found  very  numerous  inside 
of  the  involucre  or  ruffle  of  the  cotton-bloom,  where  it  is  said  to  be  useful  to  the 
planter  in  destroying  very  young  boll-worms.  In  many  cases,  where  the  eggs  of  the 
boll-worm  moth  had  been  deposited  and  hatched  out,  and  the  young  worms  had  eaten 
through  the  outer  calyx  and  already  pierced  a  hole  in  the  young  bud  or  boll,  it  was 
frequently  observed  that  no  worm  could  be  discovered  inside ;  but,  upon  opening  such  a 
ruffle,  this  small  spider  was  almost  invariably  found  snugly  ensconced  in  its  web ;  hence 
it  was  surmised  that  the  young  worm  had  entered  between  the  ruffle  and  the  boll  or 
bud,  and  had  been  destroyed  by  the  spider,  the  nest  of  which  was  found  in  such  situa- 
tions. 

311 


312  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

ARTIFICIAL  RE3IEDLES. 

TOPPING. — Topping  the  cotton  at  a  certain  time  of  the  year  has  been 
urged  as  a  means  of  destroying  the  eggs  both  of  the  cotton-worm  and 
and  boll-worm  moths.  It  has  already  been  shown  that  this  would  not 
prove  efficacious  as  a  remedy  for  the  cotton-worm,  and  the  result  would 
be  the  same  with  the  boll- worm.  It  is  true  that  some  eggs  would  be 
destroyed  in  this  way,  but  actual  count  has  shown  that  the  destruction 
of  those  eggs  which  are  deposited  upon  the  upper  part  of  the  plant 
would  not  pay  for  the  labor  of  topping. 

POISONING. — It  has  always  been  said  that  the  strong  point  of  the  boll- 
worm  lay  in  the  fact  that  it  worked  within  the  boll  where  no  poison 
could  reach  it,  and  that  this  method  of  destruction  would  prove  of  no 
avail.  Our  study  of  the  habits  of  the  insect  has  shown  us,  as  before 
stated,  that  by  far  the  greater  number  of  the  eggs  are  laid  upon  the 
leaves,  and  that  the  newly-hatched  larvae,  before  migrating  to  flower- 
buds  or  bolls,  almost  invariably  feed  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  upon  the 
leaf  where  they  were  born.  This  shows,  then,  that  a  well-distributed 
poisonous  mixture  would,  in  all  probability,  destroy  great  numbers  of  the 
young  worms.  Observation  has  also  shown  that  well-grown  boll-worms, 
migrating  from  boll  to  boll,  are  also  frequently  killed  by  eating  poisoned 
leaves.  There  is,  then,  a  double  reason  for  poisoning  worm-infested  cot 
ton.  The  proper  time  for  poisoning  for  the  boll- worm,  in  regions  where 
there  is  reason  to  suspect  an  extensive  migration  from  corn  to  cotton, 
is  a  few  days,  say  a  week,  after  the  full-grown  worms  are  found  in  the 
hardening  ears  of  corn,  or  when  the  moths  are  observed  to  fly  abund- 
antly after  the  ear  has  begun  to  harden.  The  poisoning  for  the  third 
brood  proper  of  the  cotton- worm  and  of  the  boll- worm  may  be  done  simul- 
taneously. 

Inasmuch  as  an  extended  discussion  of  poisons  and  methods  of  apply- 
ing has  been  given  in  Chapter  VII,  of  Part  I,  any  remarks  on  this  head 
will  be  unnecessary. 

HAND-PICKING. — We  should  be  far  from  advising  any  planter  to  at- 
tempt to  rid  himself  of  the  boll- worm  by  collecting  them  from  cotton  by 
hand.  The  plan  which  we  do  mean  to  suggest  under  this  heading  is 
killing  the  earlier  brood  of  the  insect  upon  corn  as  a  preventive  against 
future  injuries  in  cotton. 

This  idea  was  first  suggested  by  Col.  B.  A.  Sorsby,  as  stated  in  the 
Department  of  Agriculture  report  for  1855 : 

Col.  B.  A.  Sorsby,  of  Columbus,  in  Georgia,  has  bred  both  these  insects  (corn  and 
boll  worms)  and  declares  them  to  be  the  same ;  and,  moreover,  when,  according  to  his 
advice,  the  corn  was  carefully  wormed  on  two  or  three  plantations,  the  boll- worms  did  not 
make  their  appearance  that  season  on  the  cotton,  notwithstanding  that  on  neighboring 
plantations  they  committed  great  ravages. 

Mr.  E.  Sanderson,  in  1858,  having  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
two  insects  were  identical,*  advised  the  early  planting  and  forcing  of 

*  American  Cotton  Planter,  November,  1858. 


DESTRUCTION  OF  EARLY  BROODS.  313 

cotton  and  the  late  planting  of  alternate  rows  of  corn,  with  the  view 
of  keeping  the  worms  supplied  with  a  stock  of  the  food-plant  which 
they  evidently  preferred. 

In  1859,  Mr.  Peyton  King,  of  Enterprise,  in  commenting  upon  Mr. 
Sanderson's  paper,  said : 

If  they  are  the  same,  their  ravages  may  be  to  a  great  extent  lessened  by  the  plan 
suggested  by  Mr.  Sanderson — that  of  planting  the  corn  crop  later.  And  to  his  plan 
I  would  suggest  another — that  of  sending  hands  at  the  proper  time  through  the  corn 
for  the  purpose  of  opening  slightly  every  ear  with  a  dead  silk,  to  extract  and  destroy 
the  worm,  and  thereby  destroy  the  miller.  This  might  pay  in  reference  to  the  corn 
alone.* 

No  attention  seems  to  have  been  paid  to  either  of  these  suggestions, 
and  the  remedy  has  never  come  into  use. 

The  same  idea  suggested  itself  to  me  during  my  stay  in  the  field  in 
the  summer  of  1878,  but,  as  I  arrived  in  the  latter  part  of  July,  I  was 
only  able  to  theorize.  Mr.  Trelease  was  instructed  to  pay  attenton  to 
this  point,  and  in  his  report  we  find  the  following : 

Since  the  earliest  broods  of  larvae  are  found  on  the  maize  or  Indian  corn,  first  in  the 
stalk,  later  in  the  ears,  and  since  the  tendency  of  the  species  to  multiply  in  geometrical 
progression  makes  it  desirable  to  destroy  the  early  broods  if  possible,  I  would  suggest 
hand-picking  of  these  earlier  broods  as  the  best  way  known  to  me  of  dealing  with 
the  pest.  As  was  stated  when  speaking  of  the  natural  history  of  Heliothis,  if  one  of 
these  larvae  has  taken  up  its  abode  in  a  stalk  of  corn,  the  fact  can  be  detected  by  a 
very  superficial  examination,  owing  to  the  holes  formed  in  the  leaves.  Let,  then, 
each  plow-hand  be  instructed,  when  cultivating  the  corn,  to  stop  whenever  he  finds 
such  a  stalk,  and  catch  and  kill  the  worm,  even  though  it  should  occasionally  be 
necessary  to  destroy  the  plant  in  doing  this,  for  the  hill  may  be  replanted,  and  the 
larvae  thus  killed  might,  if  suffered  to  live,  become  in  a  few  generations  the  parent 
of  hundreds  of  boll-worms.  Later,  after  the  corn  is  laid  by  and  has  begun  to  fruit, 
boys  may  be  sent  through  the  fields  to  kill  the  "  tassel  worms,"  the  presence  of  which 
may  be  detected  by  the  excrement  at  the  end  of  the  ear,  or  by  the  silk  being  eaten 
away.  To  catch  these  it  will  be  only  necessary  to  open  the  husk  for  a  short  distance 
back  from  the  end  of  the  ear,  and,  from  the  ease  of  discovering  affected  ears,  the  ex- 
pense will  not  be  great.  It  is  objected  to  this  that  ears  so  opened  are  exposed  to  the 
weather  and  to  the  attacks  of  birds.  Though  it  must  be  admitted  that  this  is  true 
to  a  certain  point,  the  destruction  of  all  ears  so  interfered  with  does  not  follow,  and 
the  great  lessening  of  the  next  crop  of  boll-worms  will,  I  am  certain,  more  than  pay 
for  what  corn  is  sacrificed. 

The  boll- worm  cannot  be  expected  to  be  exterminated  by  this  process, 
since  it  has  so  many  other  food  plants  from  which  it  could,  at  any  time, 
migrate  to  corn  or  cotton ;  but,  inasmuch  as  corn  appears  to  be  its  favorite 
food,  its  numbers  could  be  very  greatly  lessened,  and  its  injuries  to  cotton 
could  be  almost  done  away  with  by  this  process.  We  advise  planters 
by  all  means  to  try  it,  and  we  assure  them  that  their  time  will  not  be  lost. 
In  sections  of  the  cotton-belt  which  are  badly  troubled  with  the  boll- 
worm,  and  where  corn  is  not  grown,  it  will  be  well  to  plant  the  latter 
crop  and  use  it  as  a  trap,  as  advised  above. 

EOTATION  OF  CEOPS. — In  the  light  of  the  relation  of  the  corn  and  boll 
worms,  and  of  the  numerous  food  plants  of  Heliothis,  we  may  here  men- 

*IUd,  February,  1859. 


314  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

tion  the  fact  that  rotation  of  crops  has  been  strongly  urged  as  a  preventive 
against  the  ravages  of  the  boll- worm.  The  knowledge  which  we  have 
gained  of  the  multivorous  habits  of  the  insect  readily  shows  us  that 
such  a  course  would  be  vain,  as  during  the  season  when  cotton  was  not 
grown  some  other  food-plant  would  be  available.  As  a  curiosity  we  may 
mention  the  fact  that  some  years  ago  a  writer  in  the  Southern  Cultiva- 
tor, after  earnestly  urging  rotation  of  crops,  advises  corn  as  the  best  crop 
to  rotate  with  cotton  ! 

DESTRUCTION  OF  THE  CHRYSALIDES. — In  the  more  southern  portions 
of  the  cotton  belt,  where  the  frosts  are  rarely  severe,  but  little  can  be 
done  toward  the  destruction  of  the  chrysalides  beyond  instructing  the 
plow-hands  to  crush  them  whenever  they  observe  them  in  plowing,  or 
causing  a  boy  to  follow  the  plow  and  collect  them  as  they  are  brought 
to  the  surface.  In  the  more  northern  portions,  however,  fall  plowing 
may  accomplish  much  good.  Experiments,  having  the  testing  of  the 
efficacy  of  this  remedy  in  view,  have  been  made  by  Professor  French. 
We  can  do  no  better  than  to  give  his  own  words : 

Fall  plowing. — To  make  it  plain  how  this  is  to  reach  them,  I  shall  have  to  explain 
some  observations  made  on  the  fall  brood  of  chrysalides  that  were  found  during  the 
month  of  November  in  a  field  where  the  worms  had  been  very  abundant  in  the  corn 
before  it  was  harvested.  In  digging  for  the  chrysalides  round  the  corn-hills,  I  found 
that  instead  of  their  occupying  an  oval  earthen  cocoon,  as  has  usually  been  written 
of  them,  and  as  they  apparently  do  in  the  breeding-box,  they  were  down  in  the  ground 
from  five  to  six  inches  below  the  surface,  in  a  hole  about  a  third  of  an  inch  in  diameter, 
reaching  from  the  chrysalis  to  the  top  of  the  ground,  where  it  was  covered  over  with 
a  thin  film  of  dirt  from  an  eighth  to  a  quarter  of  an  inch  thick.  This  hole  was  larger 
at  the  bottom  than  at  the  top,  apparently  so  as  to  give  free  motion  to  the  chrysalis, 
and  usually  bent  in  its  course,  so  that  the  lower  part  would  have  an  inclination  of 
perhaps  forty-five  degrees.  At  the  bottom  would  be  found  the  chrysalis,  the  small 
end  downward  and  the  head  upward. 

In  one  case  I  found  the  hole  so  bent  that  the  chrysalis  occupied  a  horizontal  position. 
The  hole  was  smooth  inside,  and  was  perhaps  made  so  by  cementing  the  dirt  together; 
but  of  that  I  could  not  tell,  for  the  whole  ground  was  moist,  though  dry  enough  to  be 
firm.  I  took  several  of  the  chrysalides  and  put  them  in  a  box  with  some  loose  dirt, 
and  then  moistened  it,  after  which  I  allowed  them  to  freeze.  The  dirt,  when  they 
were  allowed  to  freeze,  was  dry  enough,  so  that  if  it  had  been  in  the  garden  and 
.  turned  over  with  a  spade  it  would  crumble.  When  examined,  after  the  freezing,  all 
were  dead.  Some  others  taken  up  in  the  bottom  of  their  subterranean  habitations, 
without  sifting  the  loose  earth  round  them  in  their  holes,  and  allowed  to  freeze,  were 
not  killed  by  freezing. 

My  conclusions  were,  that  so  long  as  they  were  in  the  smooth  compartments  they 
had  made  for  themselves,  free  from  any  loose  dirt  that  would  became  wet  and  stick  to 
them,  they  could  pass  the  winter  in  safety,  even  though  they  might  bo  frozen  ;  but, 
when  the  dirt  was  packed  loosely  round  them  and  became  wet  and  stuck  to  them,  then 
freezing  killed  them.  Their  holes,  running  cell-like  as  they  do  from  the  surface  down 
into  the  ground  five  or  six  inches,  must  be  broken  up  by  plowing,  and  when  once 
broken  up  with  the  loose  dirt  round  them  the  rains  and  the  freezing  winter  weather 
would  have  the  same  effect  on  the  chrysalides  that  moisture  and  freezing  had  on  those 
in  the  box  of  loose  dirt.  Fall  plowing,  then,  for  these  reasons,  will  probably  be  the 
most  efficient  means  of  destroying  these  insects ;  besides,  if  done  late  enough,  it  will 
rid  the  ground  of  cut- worms,  &c. 


DESTRUCTION    OF   MOTHS.  315 

DESTRUCTION  OF  THE  MOTHS. — It  is  the  general  opinion  throughout 
the  South  that  the  best  if  not  the  only  way  of  getting  rid  of  the  boll- 
worm  is  by  the  use  of  lights  and  poisoned  sweets  for  attracting  the 
moths.  Several  correspondents  even  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  rav- 
ages of  the  worms  can  always  be  checked  by  attracting  the  moths  with 
lights.  Colonel  Sorsby  always  had  great  success  in  killing  these  moths 
with  molasses  and  vinegar.  He  says :  * 

We  procured  eighteen  common-sized  dinner  plates,  into  each  of  which  we  put  half 
a  gill  of  vinegar  and  molasses,  previously  prepared  in  the  proportion  of  four  parts  of 
the  former  to  one  of  the  latter.  These  plates  were  set  on  small  stakes  or  poles  driven 
into  the  ground  in  the  cotton-field,  one  to  about  each  three  acres,  and  reaching  a  little 
above  the  cotton-plant,  with  a  six-inch  square  board  tacked  on  top  to  receive  the 
plate.  These  arrangements  were  made  in  the  evening,  soon  after  the  flies  had  made 
their  appearance ;  the  next  morning  we  found  eighteen  to  thirty-five  moths  to  each 
plate.  The  experiment  was  continued  for  five  or  six  days,  distributing  the  plates  over 
the  entire  field,  each  days'  success  increasing,  until  the  numbers  were  reduced  to  two 
or  three  moths  to  each  plate,  when  it  was  abandoned  as  being  no  longer  worthy  of  the 
trouble.  The  crop  that  year  was  but  very  little  injured  by  the  boll-worm.  The  flies 
were  caught  in  their  eagerness  to  feed  upon  the  mixture  by  alighting  into  it  and  being 
unable  to  escape.  They  were  probably  attracted  by  the  odor  of  the  preparation,  the 
vinegar  probably  being  an  important  agent  in  the  matter.  As  the  flies  feed  only  at 
night,  the  plates  should  be  visited  late  every  evening,  the  insects  taken  out,  and  the 
vessels  replenished  as  circumstances  may  require.  I  have  tried  the  experiment  with 
results  equally  satisfactory,  and  shall  continue  it  until  a  better  one  is  adopted. 

The  boll- worm  moths  appear  to  be  attracted  to  the  same  sweets  as 
the  cotton-moths,  and  are  equally  attracted  to  light.  It  follows,  then, 
that  the  remarks  made  in  Chapter  VII,  Part  I,  will  apply  equally  well 
here,  and  that  the  devices  there  recommended  for  the  destruction  of  the 
cotton-moth  may  be  here  recommended  for  the  destruction  of  the  boll- 
worm  moth. 

*  Department  of  Agriculture  Report,  1855,  p.  285. 


III. 


NECTAR  AND  ITS  USES. 


317 


PLATE  III.— DESCRIPTION  OF  FIGURES. 

I.  Vertical-longitudinal  section  of  nectar  gland  from  petiole  of  EvAnus  communis 

(x8). 

II.  Vertical  transverse  section  of  the  same  near  the  distal  end  of  the  true  gland 
(x8). 

III.  A  portion  of  I,  more  highly  magnified  (x  100). 

IV.  Vertical  transverse  section  of  gland  from  mid-rib  of  a  leaf  of  Gossypinm  herba- 

oewm  (x  17). 

V.  A  portion  of  IV,  more  highly  magnified  (x  100). 
VI.  Flower  cluster  of  Marcgravia  nepenthoides,  reduced. 
VII.  Involucrate  cluster  of  flowers  of  Poinsettia  pulcko-rima,  in  the  staminate  state, 

natural  size. 

VIII.  The  same  at  an  earlier  period,  while  in  the  pistillate  state. 
IX.  Vertical  section  of  a  cluster  in  which  the  pistil  is  abortive,  in  the  staminate 

state,  natural  size. 
X.  The  same,  entire. 

XI.  Double  petiolar  gland  of  Bicinus  communis,  seen  from  above,  natural  size. 
XII.  The  same,  from  the  side. 
XIII.  Double  involucre  of  Gossypium  lierbaceum,  natural  size,  one  of  the  bracts  of  the 

inner  wheel. 

In  all  of  the  figures,  a  indicates  the  adenophore ;  e,  the  epidermis ;  /,  the  fibro  vas- 
cular bundle;  g,  the  gland  proper;  I,  the  lamina  of  the  leaf;  o,  the  ovary;  p,  the 
petiole. 
318 


Plate  III. 


AHo<uiiCoJ,ilho,;,ustic.rtallnii..rt 


NECTAR;  WHAT  IT  IS,  AND  SOME  OF  ITS  USES.* 


[As  the  investigation  of  cotton  insects  has  progressed,  the  importance 
of  the  nectar  glands  of  cotton  in  their  influence  upon  the  natural  enemies 
of  the  cotton  and  boll  worms,  has  gradually  become  more  and  more  ap- 
parent, until  at  last  it  seemed  imperative  that  some  space  should  be 
devoted  in  the  report  to  a  consideration  of  the  general  subject  of  nectar. 
The  following  chapter  was,  therefore,  prepared,'  at  my  request,  by  Mr. 
William  Trelease,  who  has  made  the  subject  of  the  mutual  relations  of 
plants  and  insects  a  special  study. — J.  H.  C.] 

Though  as  a  scientific  word  it  should  possess  precision,  the  word 
nectar  is  far  from  conveying  one  idea  when  met  with  in  the  writings 
of  different  authors.  Purely  mythological  with  most  of  the  Greek  and 
Eoman  writers,  it  signified  the  beverage  of  the  gods.  By  Virgil  it  was 
used  apparently  much  as  we  now  use  it.  "Others  [of  the  bees]  com- 
press the  clearest  honey,  and  swell  out  the  cells  with  liquid  nectar."  t 

Linnaeus  defined  a  nectary  as  a  "pars  mellifera  flori  propriaf  whence 
nectar  is  a  honey -like  substance  produced  by  such  a  floral  gland.  Dr. 
Gray  defines  the  word  as  follows  :  "  Nectar:  the  honey,  &c.,  secreted  by 
glands  or  by  any  part  of  the  corolla" ;|  or,  again,  "  Nectar:  the  sweetish 
secretions  by  various  parts  of  the  blossom,  from  which  bees  make 
honey."  §  Sachs  says,  "  Glandular  organs  are  found  in  the  flowers  which 
secrete  odorous  and  sapid  (generally  sweet)  juices,  or  contain  them 
within  their  delicate  cellular  tissue,  from  which  they  are  easily  sucked 

*  Since  nectar  is  found  in  several  parts  of  the  cotton  plant,  and  presents  some 
peculiar  phenomena  there,  it  has  been  thought  best  that  I  should  treat  briefly  in  this 
place  of  its  occurrence  and  economic  value ;  hence  the  present  essay.  My  plan  has 
been  to  indicate  what  I  understand  by  the  word  nectar ;  to  describe  some  of  the  more 
instructive  instances  of  its  occurrence,  in  an  order  depending  entirely  upon  the 
nectariferous  organs ;  to  then  arrange  these  according  to  the  purpose  which  thte  nectar 
serves  in  each  case ;  to  discuss  some  of  the  cases  more  at  length ;  and,  finally,  to 
briefly  mention  the  habits  of  some  nectar-loving  animals  when  in  quest  of  this  bever- 
age. Though  limited  time  and  prolonged  ill-health  have  prevented  me  from  making 
this  essay  what  I  had  wished  it  to  be,  I  trust  that  it  may  not  be  found  wanting  in 
what  it  professes  to  be — an  outline  of  the  uses  of  nectar  as  we  now  understand  them. 

WM.  TKELEASE. 

ITHACA,  N.  Y.,  November  12,  1879. 

tGeorgics,  iv,  1.  164. 

t  Lessons  in  Botany,  1868,  p.  222. 

§  Structural  Botany,  1879,  p.  421. 

319 


320  EEPOET   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

out.  These  juices  are  included  under  the  term  nectar."*  Delpino  pro- 
poses to  replace  the  Linnasan  definition  of  a  nectary  by  the  following : 
"  Pars  mellifera  plantarum  angiospermarum  propria  ";  t  whence  nectar  is 
a  honey-like  fluid  produced  by  such  glands  situated  anywhere  on  an 
angiospermous  plant.  This  not  only  excludes  honey-dew,  which  Delpino 
regards  as  a  pathological  symptom,  but  also  the  nectar  which  Francis 
Darwin  has  found  secreted  by  true  glands  on  Pteris  aquilina.;  a  fern. 
Darwin}  discusses  the  case  of  some  Orchid  flowers  which  contain  a 
sweet  fluid  between  the  walls  of  their  nectaries,  whence  it  is  abstracted 
by  insects  after  they  have  pierced  these  walls.  This  fluid  is  spoken  of 
by  him  as  nectar.  Eeinke  defines  nectar  as  "  a  clear  fluid  of  sweet 
taste,  elaborated  by  certain  aerial  parts  of  plants."  § 

Though  the  elimination  of  a  sweet  fluid  (honey-dew)  on  the  leaves  of 
plants  maybe  due  to  a  diseased  condition  of  the  leaves  in  many  instances, 
yet  as  it  is  of  frequent  occurrence,  and  as  the  nectar  in  the  last  case 
mentioned  is  not  elaborated  by  specialized  glands,  it  seems  best  that 
this  should  also  be  included  in  a  definition  of  nectar.  The  following  defi- 
nition is,  therefore,  proposed  in  the  belief  that  it  comprehends  all  of  im- 
portance that  any  previous  definition  has  included,  and  nothing — save  the 
honey-dew,  just  mentioned — not  included  by  some  good  authority.  NEC- 
TAR: a  fluid  always  sapid,  usually  sweet,  often  odorous,  which  is  elabo- 
rated in  any  part  of  a  plant,  remaining  where  formed  or  making  its  v,  ay  to 
some  other  part ;  its  raison  d'etre  being  the  necessity  for  the  removal  of 
some  useless  or  injurious  substance,  or  for  some  provision  to  attract  nectar- 
loving  animals  to  the  plant  for  some  definite  purpose. 

It  has  long  been  known  that  specialized  organs  for  the  elaboration  of 
nectar — nectar  glands — exist  in  the  flowers  of  many  plants  as  well  as 
outside  of  the  floral  envelopes  of  some.  These  glands,  when  occurring 
outside  of  the  flower,  always  consist  of  modified  epidermal  tissue,  as 
shown  by  Martinet :  they  may  be  said  to  be  made  up  of  an  inactive 
supporting  portion,  the  adenophore  of  Martinet  (PI.  Ill,  Figs.  1, 5, «),  and 
of  an  active  superficial  portion,  the  gland  proper  (PI.  Ill,  Figs,  l-o,  g). 
These  glandular  cells  are  far  different  from  the  epidermal  cells  of  which 
they  are  but  modifications ;  thus,  in  glands  from  the  petiole  of  the  cas- 
tor-oil plant  I  found  them  to  be  divided  by  transverse  septa ;  and  in  the 
foliar  glands  of  the  cotton  plant  to  be  marked  by  coarse  reticulations  on 
their  walls,  making  them  appear  at  first  sight  as  though  not  simple  cells. 
In  the  latter  case,  too,  their  distal  portions  are  quite  separate  from  each 
other,  so  that  they  resemble,  to  a  certain  extent,  crowded  villi.  Within 
the  flower,  glands  may  be  of  varied  structure,  sometimes  superficial, 
sometimes  deep,  possessing  less  uniformity  than  elsewhere. 

According  to  their  situation,  these  glands  may  be  either  floral  or  extra- 
floral  ;  the  former  occurring  within  the  floral  envelopes,  the  latter,  without 

*Text  Book  of  Botany,  English  translation,  1875,  p.  500. 

t  Ulterior!  Osservazione,  1875,  p.  85. 

t  Fertilization  of  Orchids,  2cl  edition,  pp.  36-44. 

$  Pringsheim's  Jahrluchtr  fur  wise.  Sot.,  1875,  x  119,  note. 


NECTAR   AND    ITS    USES.  321 

them.  Floral  glands  may  occur  as  modifications  or  appendages  of  any 
of  the  floral  organs ;  extra-floral  glands  may  occur  as  modifications  or 
appendages  of  the  outer  floral  envelope,  or  of  various  extra  floral  organs, 
as  shown  in  the  following  table : 

Eeceptacle. 

Pistil. 
Floral Stamens. 

Corolla. 

Calyx. 

Calyx. 

Ordinary  bracts. 

Specialized  bracts. 
Extrafloral.    Involucre. 

|  Peduncle. 
[Leaf. 

The  secretion  of  glands  of  the  first  group  seems  always  designed  to 
aid  in  the  fertilization  of  the  flowers  in  which  it  is  produced  by  attract- 
ing to  them  insects  or  birds,  which,  by  reason  of  some  floral  adaptation, 
while  feeding  on  the  nectar,  or  on  small  insects  likewise  attracted  to  it, 
unconsciously  transfer  pollen  from  the  anthers  to  the  stigma  of  this  or 
some  other  flower  of  the  same  species.  Some  of  these  flowers  are  of  an 
open  structure,  with  their  nectar  accessible  to  insects  of  all  sorts  and 
sizes;  others  are  of  such  size  and  form  as  to  be  limited  to  certain  groups 
of  insects,  sometimes  even  so  restricted  as  genera.  Some  are  so  formed 
that  fertilization  is  possible  by  direct  pollination  without  extraneous 
aid;  others  never  produce  offspring  unless  they  receive  such  aid.  So 
much  has  been  written  concerning  floral  nectar  and  its  uses  that  I  shall 
give  but  one  example  under  this  head,  the  flower  of  the  cotton  plant. 

The  cotton  flower  is  very  fugacious ;  opening  shortly  after  sunrise,  it 
has  passed  its  prime  before  sunset,  and  by  the  end  of  the  second  day 
the  corolla  and  stamens  have  usually  fallen  to  the  grcrand.* 

*  As  is  well  known,  the  corolla  of  one  of  these  flowers  is  creamy  white  on  opening ; 
later  in  the  same  day  it  becomes  more  or  less  tinged  with  pink  or  rose,  which  becomes 
a  uniform  deep  rose  on  the  second  day.  As  will  presently  be  shown,  these  flowers  are 
not  dependent  on  insect  aid  for  their  fertilization,  yet  the  great  size  and  conspicuous 
color  of  their  corolla  indicates  to  the  believer  in  the  commonly  accepted  theory  of  the 
evolution  of  floral  forms  that  this  has  not  always  been  the  case;  in  other  words,  that 
there  was  a  time  when,  for  some  purpose,  they  needed  to  attract  insects  or  other 
animals,  to  which  their  showy  corollas  rendered  them  visible  from  a  distance.  But 
why  should  the  color  change  so  markedly  as  the  flower  advances  in  age?  There  is 
reason  for  believing  that  fertilization  occurs  during  the  first  day  of  blooming,  and 
this  being  the  case  insects  are  not  needed  by  any  flower  more  than  one  day  old.  Many 
other  cases  could  be  given  where  the  color  of  a  corolla  changes  and  becomes  intensified 
after  the  fertilization  of  the  flower  to  which  it  belongs,  but  it  is  unnecessary  to  more 
than  mention  them  here.  The  most  satisfactory  explanation  of  this  phenomenon  that 
is  known  to  me  is  that  by  their  varied,  lasting,  and  augmented  coloration  they  attract 
flower-haunting  animals  to  the  plant.  These  instinctively,  or  by  experience,  visit 
only  the  younger  flowers,  readily  distinguishable  by  their  color  from  the  older  ones. 
See  Nature,  ix,  460,  484 ;  x,  5 ;  xvii,  78 ;  and  Delpiuo,  Ult.  Oss.,  1875,  p.  28. 
21  c  I 


322  REPORT    UPON    COTTOX    INSECTS. 

The  reproductive  organs  are  so  placed  that  on  the  expansion  of  the 
corolla  pollen  has  usually  been  deposited  on  the  stigmas,  self-fertiliza- 
tion being  thus  secured.  By  his  many  observations  and  experiments, 
Darwin  has  shown  that  where  self-fertilization  is  thus  provided  for,  oc- 
casional crossing  is  often  of  sufficient  importance  to  warrant  the  pro- 
duction of  large  and  conspicuous  corollas,  and  of  nectar  accompanied  by 
fragrance  to  secure  such  crossing  by  inducing  suitable  animals  to  go 
from  flower  to  flower.  Such  appears  to  have  been  the  case  here,  for 
within  the  corolla,  where  the  petals  separate  from  one  another  and  from 
the  staminal  column,  is  found  a  set  of  small  hairs  which  are  slightly 
viscid  as  shown  by  the  adhesion  of  pollen  grains  to  them.  What  causes 
this  viscidity  f  Early  in  July  I  noticed  a  single  hive  bee  within  a  cot- 
ton flower,  where,  as  I  then  supposed,  it  had  gone  to  collect  pollen, 
but  I  failed  to  see  that  it  did.  About  the  same  time  I  saw  many  hum- 
ble-bees entering  the  flowers  for  pollen  as  I  thought,  and  they,  too,  went 
unnoticed,  though  they  transferred  much  pollen  from  flower  to  flower  in 
these  visits.  Shortly  afterward  I  noticed  certain  sand-wasps  belonging 
to  the  genus  Elis  within  the  flowers,  and  as  I  did  not  know  that  they 
fed  on  pollen  I  was  led  to  watch  their  actions.  Instead  of  collecting 
this  substance  they  were  exploring  with  their  tongues  the  clefts  between 
the  petals;  this  led  me  to  examine  a  flower  more  closely,  the  result 
being  the  finding  of  the  hairs  just  mentioned.  As  no  nectar  was  found 
elsewhere  in  the  flowers,  and  as  these  insects  were  constant  in  their 
visits,  I  infer  that  viscidity  of  the  hairs  is  caused  by  an  exudation  of 
true  nectar.  *  Darwin  describes  a  similar  secretion  from  hairs  on  the 
labellum  of  Cypripedium.  t 

lumbers  of  specimens  of  the  beetle  Chauliognatlius  marginatm  were 
found  within  the  flowers,  where,  however,  they  ate  only  pollen,  so  far 
as  I  could  see.  Individuals  of  the  yellow  butterfly  Callidryas  cubule 
\rere  often  seen  resting  on  the  free  border  of  the  petals  and  sipping  the 
nectar  with  their  long  and  flexible  proboscides.  The  following-named 
insects  were  all  seen  in  greater  or  less  numbers  in  the  flowers  after 
nectar:  Ells  4-7iotato,  Elis plumipes,  Melissodes  nigra,  Mcgachile  sj>.,  aud 
Bombus  sp. 

In  thus  collecting  pollen  and  nectar,  these  insects,  with  the  exception 
of  the  butterfly,  coming  in  contact  with  both  anthers  and  stigmas,  became 
well  dusted  with  pollen,  which  necessarily  was  transferred  in  quantity 
from  flower  to  flower.  The  species  most  frequently  met  with  in  these 
flowers  were  Elis  plumipcs  $  and  Mclissodes  nigra. 

As  an  example  of  extralloral  nectar  produced  on  the  calyx,  I  shall 
cite  that  of  the  leguminous  plant,  Coronilla  varia,  described  by  Farrer.f 

"  111  the  Popular  Science  Review  for  July,  1869,  p.  270,  Ogle  states  that,  as  proviously 
noticed  by  Vaucher,  no  nectaries  are  found  iii  Synacnic  Malvaceae.  This  appears  to 
be  an  exception  to  that  rule,  for,  so  far  as  I  could  see,  the  stigmas  were  perfectly  re- 
ceptive when  the  corolla  expanded. 

t  Fertilization  of  Orchids,  second  edition,  p.  229. 

I  Nature,  x,  1874,  p.  1G9. 


NECTAR   AND    ITS    USES.  323 

Here  the  outer  surface  of  the  calyx  is  covered  with  small  glands,  the 
secretion  of  which  attracts  bees  to  the  flower ;  but,  strangely  enough, 
instead  of  alighting  directly  on  the  calyx  and  lapping  up  the  nectar, 
they  settle  on  the  wings  and  keel,  whence  they  protrude  their  tongues 
back  into  the  flower  and  out  between  the  separated  bases  of  the  petals, 
thus  indirectly  reaching  the  nectar  on  the  calyx.  Despite  their  usual 
intelligence,  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that  in  this  case  the  bees  are 
deceived,  believing  the  nectar  to  be  within  the  flower,  as  is  the  case  in 
so  many  of  the  Leguminpsoe,  instead  of  on  its  exterior.  But  this  decep- 
tion, if  deception  it  be,  is  of  value  to  the  plant,  for  in  resting  on  the 
wings  and  keel  the  bees  depress  these  petals,  bringing  their  breasts  in 
contact  with  stigma  and  pollen,  and  effecting  the  cross-fertilization  of 
different  flowers,  in  their  visits  from  plant  to  plant. 

Another  example  is  afforded  by  the  cucurbitaceous  plant  cultivated 
in  the  South,  under  the  name  of  bonnet-squash  or  dish-rag  plant.  Each 
lobe  of  the  calyx  has  on  its  outer  side  a  varying  number  of  glands,  which 
secrete  nectar  for  some  time  before  the  flower  opens  during  the  period 
of  blooming,  and  for  some  time  after  fecundation  has  occurred.  This 
nectar  is  so  greedily  sought  by  ants  of  several  species  that  numbers  of 
them  are  to  be  found  at  all  times  on  every  calyx  which  is  in  active  secre- 
tion, but  they  seldom  enter  the  flower'  apparently  being  prevented  from 
doing  so  by  the  large,  spreading  corolla. 

The  common  passion-flower  or  May-pop  of  the  South  (Passiflora 
incarnata)  affords  a  good  illustration  of  nectar  occurring  on  small,  unmod- 
ified bracts.  At  the  base  of  every  flower  are  found  three  or  four  small 
bracts,  each  bearing  two  large  nectar  glands.  Though  the  secretion  of 
these  is  not  very  plentiful,  it  is  sufficiently  so  to  attract  swarms  of  ants, 
which,  as  in  the  last  case,  do  not  enter  the  flowers,  apparently  finding 
the  spreading  sepals  and  petals  and  the  dense  corona  insurmountable 
obstacles. 

In  the  tropical  Marcgravia  nepentlioldes  (PI.  Ill,  Fig.  C),  Belt  tells  us 
that  "the  flowers  are  disposed  in  a  circle,  hanging  downwards,  like  an 
inverted  candelabrum.  From  the  center  of  the  circle  of  flowers  is  sus- 
pended a  number  of  pitcher-like  vessels,  which,  when  the  flowers  expand, 
in  February  and  March,  are  filled  with  a  sweetish  liquid.  This  liquid 
attracts  insects,  and  the  insects  numerous  insectivorous  birds.  The 
flowers  are  so  disposed,  with  the  stamens  hanging  downwards,  that  the 
birds,  to  get  at  the  pitchers,  must  brush  against  them,  and  thus  convey 
the  pollen  from  one  plant  to  another."*  These  pitcher-like  vessels  are 
modified  leaves  or  bracts,  the  nectar  of  each  gland  being  secreted  inside 
a  sort  of  pouch,  and  passing  to  the  surface  through  two  pores  or  ducts.t 

Good  examples  of  nectar  borne  on  bracts  collected  into  an  involucre 
are  afforded  by  some  of  the  Euphorbias.  Thus  in  E.  (Poinsettia)  pul- 

*  Naturalist  in  Nicaragua,  1874,  p.  128. 

tFor  the  structure  of  these  glands  see  Wittmack,  Botanisclie  Zdtting,  No.  35,  Aug., 
1879,  s.  557. 


324  REPORT   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

cherrima  (PL  III,  Figs.  7-10),  the  flowers  are  collected  into  clusters  consist- 
ing of  a  central,  stalked,  pistillate  flower,  surrounded  by  a  varying 
number  of  stalked  monaiidrous  staminate  flowers,  the  whole  cluster  being 
inclosed  in  an  involucre  so  as  to  resemble  somewhat  a  single  flower.  On 
the  side  of  each  involucre  is  a  large,  yellowish,  cup-shaped  gland,  which 
secretes  a  considerable  quantity  of  nectar  during  the  blooming  period  of 
the  cluster  to  which  it  belongs.  In  the  house  this  is  sought  by  myriads 
of  the  small  red  ant  Myrmica  molesta,  and  in  the  open  air  of  its  native 
place  probably  by  small  bees  and  flies  such  as  are  known  to  visit  other 
Euphorbias.  When  one  of  these  clusters  begins  to  expand  the  pistillate 
flower  at  its  center  is  protruded  (PL  III,  Fig.  8,  o),  and  expands  its  three 
bilobed  stigmas,  which  are  ready  for  fecundation.  A  few  days  later, 
these  having  withered,  the  stalk  of  the  pistillate  flower  becomes  suffi- 
ciently elongated  to  protrude  the  entire  ovary  *  (PL  III,  Fig.  7,  o),  and  by 
this  time  several  of  the  stamens  have  become  exserted  and  shed  their 
pollen.  From  this  it  appears  that  in  this  species  self-fertilization  is  im- 
possible, since  there  are  no  perfect  flowers;  the  first  remove  from  this, 
crossing  between  flowers  of  the  same  cluster,  is  likewise  impossible, 
owing  to  the  maturing  of  the  pistillate  flower  before  any  of  the  stamin- 
ate flowers  are  mature;  and  the  closest  cross  that  can  occur  is  between 
different  clusters  on  the  same  plant,  which,  as  appears  from  the  crowded 
structure  of  these  clusters,  is  about  equivalent  to  crossing  different 
flowers  on  the  same  plant  of  such  a  species  as  the  Marcgravia  figured, 
for  a  number  of  these  involucrate  clusters  are  collected  together  and 
surrounded  by  a  whorl  of  bright  crimson  bracts,  rendering  the  whole 
very  conspicuous  to  such  insects  as  are  in  search  of  nectar.  These  in- 
sects, in  obtaining  the  nectar,  necessarily  brush  the  floral  organs  and 
must  secure  the  cross-fertilization  of  the  species. 

Another  example  of  nectar  borne  on  a  floral  involucre  is  afforded  by 
the  cotton  plant,  where  each  flower  is  surrounded  by  a  whorl  of  three 
large  laciniate  bracts,  on  the  outside  of  each  of  which,  near  its  base,  is 
a  nectariferous  pit.t 

Alternating  with  these  bracts,  and  just  within  the  circle  formed  by 
their  bases,  are  three  other  pits,  smaller  than  the  former,  but  like  them, 
active.} 

The  first  few  flowers  that  open  possess  only  rudiments  of  glands;  but 

*In  cultivation  the  pistillate  flower  is  often  entirely  abortive  (Figs.  9  and  10),  and 
its  ovules  seem  to  be  always  aborted  in  onr  greenhouses,  for  though  an  abundance  of 
apparently  good  pollen  is  produced  I  cannot  learn  that  the  species  ever  set  seed  \vith 
us.  My  authority  for  this  failure  to  set  seed  is  Peter  Henderson,  the  well-known  New 
York  florist.  See  Gray,  Sillimau's  Journal,  3d  series,  xiii,  1877,  p.  138;  and  some  notes 
by  myself,  Bulletin  Torry  Botanical  Club,  vi,  1879,  p.  344. 

t  Glover,  Agricultural  Report,  1855,  p.  234,  mentions  these  glands,  as  well  as  the  inner 
st-t  and  their  secretion  of  a  "  sweet  substance,  which  ants,  bees,  wasps,  and  plant-bugs 
avail  themselves  of  as  food." 

{These  glands  belong,  in  reality,  to  an  inner  whorl  of  three  bracts,  alternating  with 
the  outer  ones,  but  generally  wanting.  In  stunted  plants,  especially  as  cold  weather 
comes  on,  one  or  more  of  these  inner  bracts  may  often  be  found.  ((PI.  Ill,  Fig.  13.) 


NECTAR   AND    ITS    USES.  325 

all  after  the  first  few  possess  the  outer  set,  though  it  is  not  till  the  cot- 
ton has  been  blooming  about  a  month  that  the  inner  set  appear.  Con- 
fining our  observations  to  flowers  which  possess  both  sets  fully  devel- 
oped, we  find  that  a  number  of  days  before  a  flower-bud  opens  all  of  its 
iuvolucral  glands  are  visited  more  or  less  frequently  by  ants,  and  occa- 
sionally a  wasp  or  hive  bee  may  be  seen  about  them,  although  to  our 
eyes  they  are  dry.  Evidently,  then,  they  secrete  a  thin  sugary  film. 
The  evening  before  such  a  bud  opens,  its  visitors  increase  in  number, 
and  we  may,  perhaps,  see  a  little  nectar  in  its  glands.  But  during  the 
night  preceding  its  unfolding,  its  cups  fill  out  with  the  sweet  fluid  which 
is  collected  by  large  numbers  of  ants,  and  early  the  next  morning  a 
large  drop  may  be  seen  suspended  from  the  lower  margin  of  each,  or  in 
some  cases  running  down  the  bract ;  and  throughout  this,  which  may  be 
called  the  day  of  blooming,  bees,  wasps,  and  ants  of  many  species  may 
be  found  in  constant  attendance  on  the  glands.  Though  drawn  so  close 
to  the  flowers,  these  insects  never  enter  them,  so  they  can  have  no  direct 
influence  on  their  fertilization.  Perhaps  the  strangest  thing  about  these 
glands  is,  that  during  the  night,  when  this  abundance  of  nectar  is  col- 
lecting, they  are  visited  by  thousands  of  the  moths  of  Aletia  argillacea 
and  HeUothis  armigera  whenever  these  moths  are  flying  and  laying  their 
eggs.  This  appears  to  be  a  strange  paradox.  Xectar  is  secreted  ap- 
parently to  attract  insects  to  a  plant ;  and  some  of  the  insects  so  at- 
tracted have  the  instinct  to  oviposit  on  the  plant,  on  the  foliage,  flowers, 
and  fruit  of  which  their  larvae  feed.  How  could  this  secretion  have 
been  acquired  by  natural  selection  ?  It  looks  as  if  such  an  acquisition 
must  imply  the  survival  of  the  untittest !  As  has  been  shown  elsewhere, 
the  flowers  of  the  cotton  plant  suffer  from  the  attacks  of  the  larvae  of 
both  these  moths ;  but  most  of  the  eggs  of  both  species  are  laid  on  other 
parts  of  the  plant  than  the  flowers  or  floral  appendages,  consequently 
a  larva  to  reach  the  flower  must  ascend  the  peduncle,  and  run  the  gaunt- 
let of  ants,  wasps,  and  bees  found  at  its  summit;  though  I  never  saw 
one  ascending  when  these  insects  were  at  their  post,  and  therefore  never 
had  an  opportunity  to  see  what  would  happen  then.  I  found  that  when 
these  larvae  are  on  the  leaves  of  the  plant  they  are  sometimes  attacked 
and  killed  by  the  ants  without  any  provocation.  So  it  appears  that  the 
secretion  of  these  glands  first  attracts  the  worst  enemies  of  the  plant, 
and  then  attracts  their  enemies,  which  afford  it  partial  relief  fr6m  the 
misfortune  that  it  has  brought  on  itself. 

An  example  of  nectar  secreted  on  the  flower-stalk  is  found  in  the  cow- 
pea.  At  the  summit  of  each  peduncle  are  several  small,  crater- shaped, 
circumvallate  glands,  which  secrete  until  the  fruit  is  well  advanced 
toward  maturity,  as  well  as  during  the  flowering  period.  Occupying,  as 
they  do,  the  very  end  of  the  peduncle,  they  are  beyond  the  clustered 
flowers  and  seed-vessels.  In  Alabama  I  found  that  they  are  much  fre- 
quented by  ante  of  several  species.  Like  the  cotton  plant,  the  cow-pea 
is  visited  by  the  moths  of  both  Aletia  and  HeliothiSj  but  only  the  latter 


326  REPORT   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

oviposits  on  it,  and  this  in  but  small  numbers,  its  larvae  feeding  on  the 
green  seeds.  The  same  complication,  therefore,  exists  here  as  in  the  case 
of  the  cotton  plant ;  but  in  this  case  the  attack  appears  to  be  limited  to 
the  early  fruiting  period,  and  a  body-guard  of  ants  is  maintained  during 
this  period. 

Coming,  now,  to  leaves,  we  may  briefly  refer  to  the  sweet  fluid  known 
as  honey-dew,  which  is  sometimes  found  on  the  foliage  of  plants.  In 
many  cases  this  will  be  found  not  to  originate  in  the  leaves,  but  to  drip 
from  the  anal  tubes  of  aphides,  or  plant-lice;  and  with  this  we  have 
nothing  to  do,  since  it  is  not  a  production  of  the  plant.  But  in  some 
cases  this  substance  is  an  excretion  from  the  leaves,  apparently  due 
either  to  the  climatic  conditions  obtaining  at  the  time  of  its  production 
or  to  a  diseased  state  of  the  plant.  It  is  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  produced 
by  structures,  such  as  glands,  in  any  case.  Though  bees  and  ants  col- 
lect this  substance  with  avidity,  it  does  not  appear  that  they  render  the 
plant  any  service  while  doing  so.* 

Small  glands  are  found  at  the  tips  of  the  serrations  on  the  leaves  of 
many  plants,  and  some  of  these  produce  a  plentiful  supply  of  nectar ; 
some  of  them  being  frequently  visited  by  insects,  and  others  scarcely  at 
all.  Like  the  last,  this  nectar  is  believed  by  Darwin  to  be  merely  ex- 
cretory, and  as  going  to  show  that  such  is  the  case  we  may  mention  the 
fact  that  the  leaves  of  peaches,  nectarines,  and  apricots — which  may  be 
glandular  in  some,  and  not  glandular  in  others  of  the  offspring  of  a 
single  parent — if  glandular,  are  less  liable  to  the  attacks  of  mildew  than 
if  they  bear  no  glands.t 

Leigh  ton  found  that — 

On  the  upper  edge  of  the  vertical  phyllodia  of  Acacia  magnified,  subtending  the 
showy  spikes  of  yellow  flowers,  which  proceed  from  their  axils,  appeared  a  pellucid 
drop  of  liquid,  varying  in  size  from  that  of  a  large  piu's  head  to  that  of  a  grain  of 
mustard-seed.  This  to  the  taste  was  sweet  and  sugary.  The  flowers  themselves  had 
no  odor,  except  toward  nightfall,  when  they  gave  out  a  weak  disagreeable  smell,  only 
perceptible  on  close  contact.  In  wiping  off  the  sugary  secretion  it  was  observed  that 
it  proceeded  from  a  small  sunken  linear-oblong  orifice  or  slit,  surrounded  by  a  swollen 
margin.  *  *  *  The  secretion  takes  place  only  during  the  period  that  the  plant  is 
in  blossom.  So  soon  as  the  flowers  fade  and  begin  to  fall,  the  secretion  ceases  and 
disappears.  It  would  seem  then  to  be  in  some  way  or  other  connected  with  the  fer- 
tilization of  the  flower ;  and  as,  when  the  secretion  becomes  excessive,  it  falls  and 
blotches  the  lateral  expansion  of  the  phyllodium,  it  is  probably  to  attract  insects  to 
efl'ect  this,  *  *  *  it  seems  almost  evident  that  it  would  require  an  insect  of  some 
considerable  size  and  of  some  peculiar  structure  to  remove  and  apply  the  pollen,  the 
secretion  not  being  in  the  blossom  itself,  but  at  a  short  distance  from  it,  011  the  phyl- 
lodium.t 

This  case  appears  quite  similar  to  that  of  the  cotton  flower  previously 
given,  and  I  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  real  object  of  the  nec- 

*  Darwin,  Cross  and  Self  Fertilization,  1877,  page  402,  mentions  undoubted  cases  of 
the  occurrence  of  this  excretion,  besides  giving  references  to  other  writings  bearing 
on  this  point. 

t  For  references  on  this  subject  see  Darwin,  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestica- 
tion, Orange  .Tudd  edition,  1868,  i,  413:  ii,  280. 

J  Annals  of  Natural  History,  third  series,  xvi,  1865,  page  12. 


NECTAR    AND    ITS    USES..  327 

ta,r  was  to  secure  protection  to  the  flowers,  rather  than  to  secure  their 
fertilization,  though  the  latter  might  occasionally  occur  incidentally. 

On  the  lower  surface  of  the  leaf  of  the  cotton  plant,  not  far  from  its 
base,  the  mid-rib  bears  a  large  sunken  nectar  gland,  and  each  of  the  lat- 
eral veins  of  the  larger  leaves  bears  a  similar  gland.*  Traces  of  these 
glands  may  sometimes  be  found  on  the  cotyledons,  but  I  never  saw  a 
perfect  gland  on  a  seed-leaf.  As  shown  by  the  visits  of  ants,  the  gland 
of  the  first  leaf  begins  to  secrete  when  the  seedling  plant  has  about  four 
leaves  expanded;  but  it  is  not  till  some  days  later  that  enough  nectar  is 
produced  to  be  noticeable,  and  from  this  time  on  the  gland  secretes 
abundantly  until  the  leaf  becomes  old  or  diseased.  When  a  gland  is  in 
vigorous  secretion  it  may  be  examined  at  almost  any  time  of  the  day, 
and  barely  enough  fluid  will  be  found  in  it  to  fill  the  pit  two-thirds  full; 
but  during  the  night,  and  until  some  time  after  sunrise  in  the  morning, 
great  drops  of  the  sweet  fluid  may  be  found  hanging  from  its  border. 
This  nectar  is  very  attractive  to  certain  insects,  chiefly  ants,  wasps,  and 
mud-daubers.  It  is  also  sought  at  night  by  the  moths  of  both  Aletia 
and  HeUothte,  the  former  of  which  had  been  seen  to  alternate  sipping 
this  nectar  with  ovipositing.  As  I  have  elsewhere  stated,  the  Iarva3  of 
both  these  moths  feed  on  the  leaves  of  this  plant,  and  both  have  been 
attacked,  removed  from  the  plant,  and  killed  before  my  eyes  by  ants  or 
wasps  induced  by  tjris  nectar  to  visit  the  leaves. 

On  the  lamina  of  the  leaves  of  the  bonnet  squash  a  variable  number  of 
pustule-like  glands  is  found.  These  secrete  an  abundance  of  nectar,  and 
are  constantly  attended  by  ants  of  several  species,  which,  from  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  glands,  are  led  to  explore  every  inch  of  the  leaf-surface. 
I  only  found  that  the  leaves  of  this  plant  were  attacked  by  the  larvae  and 
imagines  of  the  large  lady-bird,  Epilaclma  borealis,  and  as  very  few  of 
these  were  seen  on  them  I  could  not  determine  their  relations  with  the 
ants. 

In  Acacia  sphcerocephala,  the  bull's-horn  thorn,  Mr.  Belt  tells  us  that — 

The  leaves  are  bipinnate.  At  the  base  of  each  pair  of  leaflets,  on  the  mid-rib,  is  a 
crater-formed  gland,  which,  when  the  leaves  are  young,  secretes  a  honey-like  liquid. 
Of  this  the  ants  are  very  fond,  and  they  are  constantly  running  about  from  one  gland 
to  another  to  sip  up  the  honey  as  it  is  secreted.  But  this  is  not  all ;  there  is  a  still 
more  wonderful  provision  of  solid  food.  At  the  end  of  each  of  the  small  divisions  of 
the  compound  leaflet  there  is,  when  the  leaf  first  unfolds,  a  little  yellow  fruit-like 
body  united  by  a  point  at  its  base  to  the  end  of  the  pinnule.  Examined  through  a 
microscope,  this  little  appendage  looks  like  a  golden  pear.  When  the  leaf  first  unfolds, 
the  little  pears  are  not  quite  ripe,  and  the  ants  are  continually  employed  going  from 
one  to  another  examining  them.  When  an  ant  finds  one  sufficiently  advanced,  it  bites 
the  small  point  of  attachment ;  then,  beiiding  down  the  fruit-like  body,  it  breaks  it 
off  and  bears  it  away  in  triumph  to  the  nest.  All  the  fruit-like  bodies  do  not  ripen  at 
once,  but  successively,  so  that  the  ants  are  kept  about  the  young  leaf  for  some  time 
after  it  unfolds.  Thus  the  young  leaf  is  always  guarded  by  the  ants,  and  no  caterpil- 
lar or  larger  animal  could  attempt  to  injure  them  without  being  attacked  by  the  little 


*  Glover,  Agricultural  Report,  1855,  p.  — ,  points  out  the  presence  and  secretion  of 
these  glands. 


328  REPOET  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS.  , 

This  Acacia  bears  large  paired  thorns,  which,  "when  young,  are  filled 
with  a  sweetish  pulp.  Boring  a  hole  through  the  wall  of  one  of  these 
young  thorns  the  ants  eat  out  the  contents  of  this  one  and  its  mate,  this 
action  causing  an  enlargement  of  the  thorn,  so  that  a  capacious  chamber 
is  formed,  and  in  this  the  ants  live,  remaining  constantly  on  the  tree,  so 
that  Mr.  Belt  remarks — 

I  think  these  facts  show  that  the  ants  are  really  kept  by  the  Acacia  as  a  standing 
army,  to  protect  its  leaves  from  the  attacks  of  herbivorous  mammals  and  insects.  *  *  * 
I  sowed  the  seeds  of  the  Acacia  in  my  garden,  and  reared  some  young  plants.  Ants  of 
many  kinds  were  numerous,  but  none  of  them  took  to  the  thorns  for  shelter  nor  the 
glands  and  fruit-like  bodies  for  food ;  for,  as  I  have  already  mentioned,  the  species 
that  attend  on  the  thorns  are  not  found  in  the  forest.  The  leaf-cutting  ants  attacked 
the  young  plants  and  defoliated  them  ;  but  I  have  never  seen  any  of  the  trees  out  on 
the  savannahs  that  are  guarded  by  the  Pseiidomyrma  touched  by  them,  and  have  no 
doubt  the  Acacia  is  protected  from  them  by  its  little  warriors.  * 

At  the  base  of  the  petioles  in  the  greater  coffee- weed  of  the  South 
(Cassia  occidentalis)  are  globular  glands,  which  secrete  a  sufficient  quan- 
tity of  nectar  to  render  them  attractive  to  numerous  ants,  wasps,  and 
bees,  which  would  be  encountered  by  any  wingless  insect  in  ascending 
the  stem  or  passing  out  on  any  leaf.  Most  of  the  upper  leaves  subtend- 
ing the  racemes  of  flowers  are  reduced  to  mere  bracts,  which,  however, 
have  their  glands  large  and  active ;  and  these  bear  the  same  relation  to 
the  flowers  and  young  fruit  that  those  lower  down  do  to  the  leaves. 

Several  species  of  Sarracenia  (pitcher-plants,  or  trumpets)  have  the 
lids  or  mouths  of  their  pitcher-like  leaves  provided  with  a  sweetish 
secretion  which,  at  certain  times,  in  at  least  one  species  (S.  variolaris), 
extends  along  the  margin  of  the  wing  in  front  of  ihe  leaf  so  as  nearly  or 
quite  to  reach  the  ground.  Thus  a  line  of  nectar  runs  from  the  ground 
to  and  within  the  mouth  of  the  pitcher,  which  is  here  provided  witli  a 
flue  velvety  pubescence,  the  hairs  pointing  downward.  Just  below  this 
is  a  rough  portion,  lined  with  stiff  bristles  which  also  point  downward. 
The  lower  part  of  the  tube,  destitute  of  these  hairs,  is  filled  by  a  watery 
liquid,  Avholly  or  in  great  part  secreted  by  the  walls  of  the  pitcher,  and 
usually  protected  from  dilution  with  rain-water  by  the  overarching  lid 
of  the  pitcher,  the  real  blade  of  the  leaf.  An  insect,  lured  up  the  wing 
and  to  the  mouth  of  the  pitcher,  while  feeding  on  the  repast  so  generously 
offered,  slips  on  the  velvety  surface,  tries  in  vain  to  catch  a  firmer  hold, 
slips  farther,  and  falls  into  the  pitcher,  whence  the  stiff  Qhevfwx-de-frite 
makes  his  escape  very  difficult.  Reaching  the  water  he  is  sooner  or 
later  drowned,  and  being  macerated  there  contributes  to  the  food  of  the 
plant.t 

The  related  Darlingtonia  californica  has  a  somewhat  similarly  shaped 
leaf.  Its  long,  twisted  tube  is  arched  above,  so  as  to  prevent  the  access 
of  rain-water  to  the  secretion  which  fills  its  lower  part,  and  the  part 
answering  to  the  hood  of  Sarracenia  or  the  blade  of  an  ordinary  leaf  is 

*  The  Naturalist  in  Nicaragua,  1874,  p.  219. 

tSee  J.  H.  Mellichamp's  "Notes  on  Sarracenia  variolaris,"  Proc.  Am.  As.  Adv.  So., 
xxiii,  1874,  Nat.  Hist.,  p.  113;  also  Riley,  ibid.,  p.  18;  and  Trans.  St.  Louia  Acad.,  iii,  235. 


NECTAK   AND    ITS    USES.  329 

produced  in  front  of  its  mouth  in  the  form  of  a  fish  or  swallow  tail.  As 
in  the  last  case,  the  edge  of  the  border  of  the  wing,  the  mouth,  and  the 
blade  or  fish-tail  appendage  are  provided  with  a  secretion  of  nectar,  as 
is  also  the  inside  of  its  arched  hood ;  so  that  insects  are  attracted  as  be- 
fore by  the  sweets,  only  to  meet  their  death  on  entering  the  tube.  The 
nectar  leading  from  the  ground  appears  designed  to  attract  creeping 
insects,  such  as  the  ants,  which  form  a  large  part  of  the  prey  of  Sarra- 
cenias,  while  the  swallow-tail  appendage  appears  to  be  for  the  purpose 
of  attracting  flying  insects.* 

Like  the  preceding,  the  climbing  Indian  pitcher-plants  (Nepenthes) 
secrete  nectar  about  the  mouths  and  on  the  lids  of  their  cups,  and  for 
the  same  purpose,  for  they,  too,  are  insectivorous,  and,  indeed,  more 
truly  so  than  either  of  the  genera  previously  mentioned,  inasmuch  as 
their  secretion  has  been  shown  to  be  a  true  digestive  fluid,  while  that 
of  the  others  is  scarcely  demonstrated  as  yet  to  be  more  than  a  liquid 
in  which  maceration  may  go  on. 

When  the  foregoing  examples  are  considered,  it  appears  at  once  that 
all  nectar  may  be  divided  into  two  classes,  according  as  its  relations  to 
the  secreting  plant  are  direct  or  indirect,  according  as  it  merely  relieves 
the  plant  of  a  waste  or  injurious  substance,  or  serves  to  establish  definite 
relations  between  it  and  other  living  beings.  Furthermore,  the  first 
class  is  entirely  excretory,  and  is  produced  either  by  the  unmodified  leaf 
tissues  or  by  specialized  glands ;  the  second  class  is  never  excretory, 
and  may  be  subdivided  into  two  groups — as  has  been  done  by  Delpino — 
the  first  aiding  in  reproduction,  and  being  either  intra  or  extra  floral ; 
the  second  taking  no  direct  part  in  reproduction,  being  always  extra- 
floral,  and  serving  indirectly  either  for  the  protection  of  some  part  of 
the  plant  or  for  its  nutrition  by  attracting  animals  which,  in  the  one 
instance,  serve  as  a  body-guard  to  the  tender  foliage  and  flowers,  and 
in  the  other  are  killed,  their  remains  undergoing  decomposition  or  even 
digestion  in  the  leaf  cavities  of  the  plant,  and  serving  in  either  case  as 
food  for  it.  This  arrangement  may  be  expressed  in  tabular  form  as 
below : 

Directly  useful  ....   Excretory 5  From  the  surface- 

<  From  glands. 

f  Borne  on  Sepals. 
I  Borne  on  Petals. 

{Floral <  Borne  on  Stamens. 
Borne  on  Pistils. 
iBorneonKeceptacle. 
If  Borne  on  Calyx. 
Estrafloral <J  Borne  on  Bracts. 

Indirect ly  useful . .  </  ^  Borne  on  frvoliicre. 

f  To  flowers. 

["Protective <(  To  fruit. 

I  Non-reproductive.  <|  (^  To  foliage. 

^  Nutritive By  securing  material  for 

absorption  by  leaves. 

*  See  Canby,  Proc.  Am.  As.  Adv.  Sc.,  xxiii,  1874,  Nat.  Hist.,  p.  64. 


330  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

In  order  that  the  significance  of  some  of  the  examples  given  may  be 
fully  understood  it  will  be  necessary  to  speak  briefly  of  the  habits  of  a 
few  insects.  Ants,  the  most  numerous  of  all  the  visitors  of  extrafloral 
nectar  glands,  are  of  various  habits.  So  far  as  I  know  all  of  the  species 
with  which  I  had  to  do  in  Alabama  are  omnivorous,  eating  nectar  and 
other  sweet  substances,  but  largely  feeding  upon  animal  food.  In  pleasant 
weather  they  may  be  found  abroad  night  and  day.  But  this  is  not  true 
of  all  ants.  The  leaf-cutting  and  umbrella  ants,  or  Saiiba  of  Central  and 
South  America  (Occodoma),  are  entirely  herbivorous.  Excavating  large 
tunnels,  and  living  in  immense  communities,  they  are  the  terror  of  gar- 
deners in  the  hotter  parts  of  our  continent;  for  they  have  the  habit  of 
marching  in  great  armies  which  swarm  over  and  defoliate  every  unpro- 
tected plant,  preferring  cultivated  plants,  since  they,  as  a  rule,  neither 
possess  properties  rendering  them  unpleasant  to  the  taste  of  the  ants, 
nor  special  provisions  to  secure  a  body-guard  of  protecting  insects,  and 
one  or  the  other  of  these  means  of  defense  is  usually  found  in  native 
plants.  Having  reached  the  leaves  or  petals  each  ant  snips  out  as  large 
a  piece  as  he  can  carry  and  makes  oif  with  it  to  the  nest.  In  damp, 
Avarm  weather  these  ants  forage  at  all  hours,  but  when  the  air  is  hot  and 
dry  they  seem  to  realize  that  the  leaves  would  dry  up  and  become  use- 
less before  they  could  get  them  to  the  nest,  and  so  they  hunt  only  dur- 
ing the  cooler  hours  of  the  day  and  at  night.*  Moggridge  found  that  a 
graminivorous  ant  of  the  south  of  France  (Plieidole  megaceplialu]  works 
mostly  at  night,t  while  McCook  finds  that  the  parasol-ants  of  Texas 
forage  only  at  night,  visiting,  then,  the  tops  of  the  highest  trees  in  their 
leaf-collecting  labor.}  So  great  a  pest  are  these  ants  in  Central  America 
that  it  is  found  impossible,  except  by  the  most  strenuous  exertions,  to 
cultivate  any  but  native  plants. 

From  this  it  appears  that  any  plant  not  protected  by  an  unpleasant 
principle  in  its  flowers  and  foliage  is  very  liable  to  extinction  where 
these  ants  abound,  unless  it  can  secure  a  body-guard  of  some  kind,  and 
this  usually  consists  of  nectar-loving  ants.  To  give  perfect  protection 
this  force  must  reside  constantly  on  the  plant,  finding  their  food,  drink, 
and  lodging,  which,  it  will  be  remembered,  were  all  found  on  the  Acacia 
previously  mentioned.  A  less  perfect  protection  would  be  afforded  by 
ants  attracted  to  the  plant  for  some  of  their  food,  but  residing  else- 
where ;  but  it  is  probable  that  so  few  of  them  would  be  on  the  plant  at 
any  given  moment  that  an  army  of  the  leaf-cutters  would  have  no  diffi- 
culty in  overrunning  it  in  their  sudden  onslaught.  Let  us  suppose  a 
case  in  which  the  attacking  ants  travel  in  small  bands  and  only  by 
night ;  then,  evidently,  a  good  protection  would  be  afforded  by  a  small 
number  of  pugnacious,  nectar-loving  ants,  called  to  the  plant  chiefly  or 

*  See,  on  these  ants,  Bates,  Naturalist  on  the  Amazous,  and  Belt,  Naturalist  in  Nica- 
ragua. 

t  Ann.  Nat.  Hist.,  series  — ,  xiv,  1874,  p.  92. 

t  Quoted  by  Bettauy,  Nature,  Oct.  16,  1879,  p.  583. 


NECTAR   AND    ITS   USES.  331 

solely  at  night,.  In  this  case  the  plant  would  be  under  the  necessity  of 
secreting  nectar  only  during  the  night. 

As  I  have  stated  before,  the  extrafloral  nectar  of  the  cotton  plant  is 
far  more  abundant  during  the  night  and  in  the  early  morning  than  at 
any  other  time,  and  this  is  true  whether  we  consider  the  iuvolucral  or 
foliar  glands.  At  first,  from  the  visits  of  ants  to  glands  in  which  I  could 
detect  no  nectar,  and  from  the  fact  that  when  the  largest  drops  of  nec- 
tar were  seen  early  in  the  morning,  the  leaves  were  covered  with  dew ; 
I  was  led,  after  satisfying  myself  that  these  drops  were  not  confluent 
dew-drops,  to  conclude  that  a  thin  film  of  sacccharine  matter  covers  the 
glands  at  all  times  when  they  are  in  a  t  .althy  condition  and  of  suffi- 
cient age,  and  that  this  is  hygroscopic,  absorbing  so  much  watery  vapor 
from  the  damp  night  air  as  to  present  the  phenomenon  mentioned.  But 
I  was  led  to  doubt  this  conclusion  by  noticing  that  the  secretion  of  the 
iuvolucral  glands  lasts  only  during  the  blooming  period  of  the  iiower 
about  which  they  are  placed,  and  I  could  see  no  reason  why  their  nectar 
should  be  hygroscopic  for  so  brief  a  time.  This  led  me  to  examine 
glands  in  damp  weather,  before,  during,  and  after  a  rain ;  but  no  drops 
of  nectar  were  found,  though  drops  of  rain-water  were  occasionally  found 
hanging  from  the  border  of  the  glands.  So  the  hygroscopic  theory 
would  not  do.  On  the  contrary,  I  found  that  in  the  early  morning  after 
a  cloudy  or  rainy  day,  there  was  comparatively  little  nectar  in  the 
glands,  which  seems  to  show  that  the  secretion  during  the  night  is  the 
result  of  the  solar  impulse  of  the  preceding  day.  I  could  then  scarcely 
avoid  the  conclusion  that  this  nectar  was  originally  developed  by  nat- 
ural selection,  that  it  might  attract  some  nectar-loving  animal  to  protect 
the  plant  from  the  depredations  of  some  leaf  and  flower  eating  creature 
whose  visits  were  chiefly  made  at  night ;  and  such  I  believe  to  be  the 
case,  both  attackers  and  defenders  having  been  ants  in  all  probability. 

But,  it  may  be  urged,. you  have  said  that  this  nectar  is,  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  an  important  factor  in  securing  the  well-being  of  the  plant, 
since  it  attracts  ants  and  wasps  which  are  among  the  most  powerful  of 
the  natural  enemies  of  its  great  spoliators,  the  boll- worm,  and  cotton 
caterpillar;  why  can  it  not  have  been  developed  to  secure  protection 
against  them  or  some  similar  insects?  The  fact  that  it  is  protective  to 
the  plant  in  this  way  is  undeniable;  but  from  what  we  know  of  the 
economy  of  nature  it  seems  improbable  that  a  nocturnal  secretion  of 
nectar  should  have  been  secured  as  a  means  of  protection  against  larvae 
which  feed  for  the  most  part  by  day;  while  its  very  abundance  at 
night  was  certain  to  greatly  increase  their  irumber  on  plants  where  this 
peculiar  secretion  chanced  to  be  most  marked  during  the  process  of 
selection,  by  attracting  to  those  plants  a  greater  number  of  the  moths 
whose  offspring  the  larvae  are. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  urged  that  inasmuch  as  this  nectar  is 
now  so  attractive  to  the  moths  of  Aletia  and  HeliotMs,  it  probably  does 
more  harm  to  the  plant  in  attracting  them  where  they  may  lay  their 


332  EEPORT   UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

eggs,  than  good  in  drawing  the  enemies  of  their  larves;  and,  this  being 
the  case,  natural  selection  ought  to  remove  the  power  of  secretion. 
But  a  moment's  reflection  will  show  us  that  natural  selection  cannot  for 
this  reasom  remove  the  glands  or  their  activity.  For  a  long  time  the 
cotton  plant  has  been  subjected  to  the  methodical  selection  of  man, 
who,  in  selecting  seed  to  sow,  pays  no  attention  to  the  presence  or 
absence  of  active  nectar  glands  on  the  parent  plant,  but  seeks  to  pro- 
duce prolific  plants  of  vigorous  growth  and  good  staple;  so  that  no 
peculiarity  which  does  not  tend  directly  to  lessen  the  vital  force  of  the 
plant,  and  thus  bring  itself  directly  into  conflict  with  the  purpose  ot" 
man's  selection,  can  be  removed  by  natural  selection.  But  if,  under 
the  same  circumstances,  the  production  of  this  nectar  is  a  direct  drain 
on  the  vital  force  of  the  plant,  a  very  different  result  must  follow ;  for 
the  methodical  selection  of  man  then  becomes  a  factor  in  the  broader 
selection  of  nature,  and  tends  to  the  extinction  of  those  varieties  which, 
owing  to  their  greater  secretion  of  nectar,  were  even  a  little  less  vigor- 
ous or  less  prolific  than  their  fellows  which  chanced  to  secrete  less,  so 
that  the  result  must  inevitably  be  the  partial  or  total  absence  of  nectar 
in  the  most  vigorous  and  prolific  varieties.  My  observation  has  shown 
me  that  there  is  not  a  whit  less  nectar  secreted  by  the  glands  on  the 
finest  "Dixon-cluster"  stalk  than  by  those  of  the  poorest  scrub;  from 
which  I  infer  that  the  production  of  nectar  causes  very  little  drain  on 
the  energy  of  the  plant  aside  from  the  mere  vital  force  which  must  pre- 
side over  every  physiological  act.  This,  I  think,  goes  to  show  the 
correctness  of  Darwin's  idea  that  all  nectar  was  at  first  merely  an 
excretion;  and  also  that  the  material  used  in  the  elaboration  of  nectar 
by  large,  specialized,  and  active  glands  which  serve  other  than  excretory 
purposes  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  can  readily  be  spared  by  the  plant 
without  any  impairment  of  its  vigor.* 

But  if  the  glands  of  the  cotton  plant  seem  to  have  been  produced  to 
secure  the  protection  of  the  leaves  and  flowers  of  the  plant  from  leaf 
or  petal  eating  insects  like  ants,  those  of  the  cow-pea  seem  designed  to 
protect  the  flowers  and  especially  the  young  fruit  from  all  insects,  but 
chiefly  from  such  fruit-eating  larvae  as  those  of  Heliothis. 

While  watching  Viciasativa,  Darwin,  found  that  hive  bees,  while  visit- 
ing the  stipular  glands,  "never  even  looked  at  the  flowers  which  were 
open  at  the  same  time ;  whilst  two  species  of  humble-bees  neglected  the 
stipules  and  visited  only  the  flowers."t  About  10  a.  in.  one  day  in  August, 
while  the  sun  was  shining  brightly,  I  noticed  that  several  humble-bees, 

*  This,  I  think,  explains  the  Tact  that  the  glands  of  Pteriz  aquilina  still  secrete 
while  the  frond  is  young,  though  they  are  not  needed  for  its  protection  against  any 
insect,  as  discovered  by  Francis  Darwin.  They  were  probahly  developed  centuries 
ago,  when  the  young  fronds  may  have  experienced  the  most  urgent  need  of  protection, 
from  some  leaf-eating  animal,  and,  causing  little  drain  on  the  vitality  of  the  plant, 
are  still  retained,  though  in  some,  perhaps  all,  parts  of  the  world  they  are  no  longer 
of  use. 

t  Cross  and  Self  Fertilization,  1877,  p.  403,  note. 


NECTAR   AND    ITS   USES.  333 

flying  about  a  mixed  thicket  of  Cassia  occidentalis  and  C.  obtusifolia, 
visited  only  the  flowers  of  the  latter.  At  the  same  time  many  hive  bees 
and  small  wild  bees  were  seen  visiting  the  extrafloral  glands  of  the  for- 
mer, but  none  visited  the  flowers,  nor  were  any  humble-bees  seen  to 
visit  either  flowers  or  petioles  of  this  species.  On  other  occasions  I 
saw  hive  bees,  humble-bees,  various  small  bees,  wasps,  ants,  and  moths 
at  the  petiolar  glands  of  C.  occidentalis,  but  not  one  of  these  was  seen 
in  the  flowers  of  this  species ;  while  in  the  case  of  C.  obtusifolia,  as  before 
stated,  humble-bees  were  seen  to  visit  the  flowers,  but  not  the  extrafloral 
glands,  which  appear  inactive — at  least  in  Central  Alabama.  I  also 
found  that  while  both  the  outer  and  inner  involucral  glands  of  the  cot- 
ton plant  were  visited,  when  in  active  secretion,  by  hive  bees,  but  one 
individual  was  seen  to  enter  a  flower ;  and  while  humble-bees  entered 
the  flowers  constantly,  but  one  was  found  at  each  set  of  involucral  glands. 
Humming-birds  were  often  seen  about  the  flowers  of  cotton,  but  none 
were  ever  seen  to  insert  their  bills  within  the  corolla,  all  confining  their 
visits  to  the  glands  about  the  flower.  Their  actions  are  somewhat 
curious,  inasmuch  as  a  given  individual  visits  at  any  one  time  only  one 
set  of  these  glinds.  Thus  on  two  occasions  I  watched  several  which 
went  only  to  the  outer  set ;  but  on  two  other  occasions  several  were 
seen  to  confine  their  visits  exclusively  to  the  inner  set.  Not  having 
marked  individuals,  I  could  not,  of  course,  determine  whether  a  given 
bird  always  limits  itself  to  one  set  of  glands,  but  I  scarcely  think  that 
this  can  be  the  case. 

In  brief,  then,  we  see  from  the  examples  given  that  nectar,  wherever 
it  occurs,  may  be  considered  as  excretory,  reproductive,  protective,  or 
nutritive  ;  that  in  some  cases,  e.  #.,  the  leaves  of  the  peach,  excretory 
nectar  may  possibly  be  protective  also ;  that  reproductive  nectar  usually 
occurs  in  the  flowers  but  not  always ;  that  protective  nectar  seems 
in  some  cases  designed  to  keep  ants  from  defoliating  and  deflouring 
the  plant;  in  others,  to  keep  larvae  from  destroying  the  foliage  or  imma- 
ture fruit ;  that  nutritive  nectar  may  serve  in  some  cases  to  lead  to  the 
capture  of  wingless,  in  others  of  winged,  insects ;  and  finally  that  the 
vital  force  of  a  plant  is  taxed  so  little  in  the  production  of  nectar  that 
glands  once  developed  and  endowed  with  the  power  of  active  secretion 
may  continue  to  secrete  for  generations  after  the  necessity  for  their 
secretion  has  ceased  to  exist. 

OX  THE  HOMOLOGY  AND  ANATOMY  OF  NECTAR  GLANDS. 

• 

BRAVAIS,  L.  Examcn  organographiqnc  des  nectaires.  Annales  des  Sciences  Natu- 
relles,  1842,  2.  series,  xviii,  Bot.,  152. 

BnoxGuiAUT,  A.  Memoire  sur  les  glandes  nectarifcres  cle  1'ovaire  clans  diverges  fam- 
ilies de  plautes  monocoty!6dones.  Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  1854,  4.  series,  ii,  Bot.,  5. 

CLOS,  D.  Do  la  ne'cessite'  de  faire  dispairaitre  de  la  nomenclature  botauique  les  mots 
Torus  et  Nectaire.  Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  1854,  4.  series,  ii,  Bot.,  23. 

MARTINET,  J.  Organes  des  se"cr6tion  des  ve'ge'taux.  Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  1872,  5.  series, 
sir.  Bot.,  91. 


334  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

REINKE,  J.  Beitriige  zur  Anatomic  der  an  Laubbliittern,  besonders  an  den  Ziilinon 
derselben,  vorkoinmendeu  Sekretionsorgaue.  Pringskeim's  Jabrbiicher  fur  wiss. 
Bot.,  1875,  x,  119. 

ON  THE  OCCURRENCE  AND  USBS  OF  EXTRAFLORAL  NECTAR. 

BELT,  THOMAS.      (1.)   The  Naturalist  in  Nicaragua.     London,  1874.     (2.)   Nature, 

xvi,  122. 

CASPARY, .    De  nectariis.    Elverfeldse,  1848. 

DARWIN,  CHARLES.     (1.)  On  tbe  actions  of  bees  when  visiting  the  stipular  glands  of 

Vicia  sativa.     Gardener's  Chronicle,  1855,  487.     (2.)  On  nectar  as  an  illustration 

of  natural  selection.      Origin  of  Species,  6th  edition,  New  York,  73.     (3.)  On 

the  secretion  of  nectar.     Cross  and  Self  Fertilization,  New  York,  1877,  402. 
DARWIN,  FRANCIS.     On  nectar-secreting  glands.  •  Nature,  xvi,  100. 
DELPINO,  F.     (1.)  Ulteriori  osservazione.     Milan,  1863-9.     (2.)  Nettarii  estrannziali. 

Bulletiuo  Eiitomologico,  1874,  anno  vi.     (3.)  Ulteriori  osservazione.     Milan,  1875. 
FUCKEL.     Flora,  1846,  No.  27,  according  to  Reiuke,  Jahrb.  wiss.  Bot.,  x,  172. 
GRAY,  ASA.     On  extrafloral  nectar  as  securing  the  fertilization  of  Poinsettia.     Silli- 

man's  Journal,  1877,  3.  series,  xiii,  138. 

HANSTEIN.     Bot.  Zeitung,  1868,  No.  43,  according  to  Reinke,  Jahrb.  wiss.  Bot.,  x,  174. 
KURR.     Uutersuchungen  iiber  die  Bedeutung  der  Nektarieu.     1833. 
LEIGHTON,  N.  A.     On  the  gland  of  the  phyllodium  of  Acacia  magnifica.     Annals  ol' 

Natural  History,  18o5,  3.  series,  xvi,  12. 
LUBBOCK,  SIR  JOHN.     (1. )  British  Wild  Flowers  in  relation  to  Insects.     London,  1875. 

(2.)  Scientific  Lectures.     London,  1879. 
MEEHAN,  T.     On  the  glands  of  Cassia  and  Acacia.     Proc.  Am.  As.  Adv.  Sc.,  1869, 

xviii,  260. 
MULLKR,  FRITZ.     On  ants  attracted  to  Cecropia  by  protoplasmic  bodies.    Nature,  1876, 

xiii,  305. 
POULSEN,  V.  A.     Das  extraflorale  Nectarium  bei  Batatas  edulis.     Bot.  Zeitung, 

1877,  780. 
REINKE.     (1.)  Gottingen  Nachrichten,  1873,  825.     (2.)  Beitriigo  zur  Anatomic  der  an 

Laubbllittern,  besonders  an  den  Ziihnen  derselben,  vorkomniendeu  Sekretionsor- 

gane.     Pringshcim's  Jahrbiicher  fiir  wiss.  Botanik,  1875,  x,  119. 
REIS-;I:IV.     Bot.  Zeituug,  1853,  S.  338,  according  to  Reiuke,  Jahrb.  wiss.  Bot.,  x,  174. 
RYDER,  JNO.  A.     Bees  gathering  honey  from  the   Catalpa.      American  Naturalist, 

1879,  xiii,  648. 

SPRENGEL,  C.  K.     Das  entdeckte  Geheimniss  der  Natnr.     Berlin,  1793. 
TAYLOR,  J.  E.     Flowers:  Their  Origin,  Shapes,  Perfumes,  and  Colors.     Boston,  1878. 
TKEI.EASE,  \VTM.     On  the  fertilization  of  Poinsettia  pulcherrinia.      Bulletin  of  the 

Torrey  Botanical  Club,  1879,  vi,  344. 
UNGER.     Flora,  1844,  No.  41,  according  to  Reinke,  Jahrb.  wiss.  Bot.,  x,  172. 

CONCERNING  INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS  WHICH  ATTRACT  THEIR  PREY  BY 

NECTAR. 

AUSTIN,  MRS.  R.  M.  Leaves  of  Darliugtouia  californica  and  their  two  secretions. 
Botanical  Gazette,  1878,  iii,  91. 

BARTON, .    Philos.  Mag.,  xxxix,  107. 

BARTRAM,  WM.  Travels  through  North  and  South  Carolina,  &c.  1791.  . 
HEAL,  W.  J.  Carnivorous  Plants.  Proc.  Am.  As.  Adv.  Sc.,  1875,  xxiv,  251. 
BURNETT, .  Quart.  Journ.  Sc.  and  Art.,  1829,  ii,  2UO. 


NECTAR   AND    ITS    USES.  335 

ELLIOTT, .     Botany  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  as  stated  by  Dr.  Gray. 

GRAY,  ASA.  (1.)  Fly-catching  in  Sarracenia.  Sillimau's  Journal,  1873,  3.  series,  vi, 
149,  167.  (HO  On  Mellichamp's  Observations  on  Sarracenia.  New  York  Tribune, 
1673,  (?) ;  Gardener's  Chronicle,  1874,  818.  (2.)  Sarracenias  as  fly-catchers.  Ibid., 
1874,  3.  ser.,  vii,  440.  (3.)  Sarracenia  variolaris.  Ibid.,  1874,  3.  ser.,  vii,  600. 
(4.)  Insectivorous  plants.  Darwiniana,  New  York,  1876,  289;  from  The  Nation, 
Apr.  2  aud  9,  1874.  (5.)  Insectivorous  and  climbing  plants.  Ibid.,  308;  from 
The  Nation,  Jan.  6  and  13, 1676.  (6.)  Oil  leaves  as  specialized  organs.  Structural 
Botany,  New  York,  1879,  110. 

HOOKER, .  Address  to  the  department  of  botany  and  zoology.  Eeport  Brit. 

As.  Adv.  Sc.,  1874,  102. 

MACBRIDE,  JAMES.  On  the  power  of  Sarraceuia  adunca  to  entrap  insects.  Trans. 
Linn.  Soc,,  xii,  1818,  48. 

MELLI CHAMP,  J.  H.  Notes  on  Sarracenia  variolaris.  Proc.  Am.  As.  Adv.  Sc.,  1874, 
xxiii,  Nat,  Hist.,  113. 

RILEY,  C.  V.  (1.)  Descriptions  and  natural  history  of  two  insects  which  brave  the 
dangers  of  Sarracenia  variolaris.  Trans.  St.  Louis  Acad.,  1873,  iii,  235.  (2.)  In- 
sectivorous plants.  Am.  Naturalist,  1874,  viii,  684.  (3.)  On  the  insects  more  par- 
ticularly associated  with  Sarracenia  variolaris.  Proc.  Am.  As.  Adv.  Sc.,  1874, 
xxiii,  Nat.  Hist.,  18. 

ON  FLORAL  NECTAR,  THE  ANIMALS  WHICH  SEEK  IT,  AND  THE  FERTIL- 
IZATION OF  FLOWERS  IN  GENERAL. 

ALEFELD,  DR.    On  the  genus  Linurn.     Bot.  Zeitung,  1863,  281. 

AXDERSOX,  J.  Fertilization  of  Orchids.  Journal  of  Horde,  and  Cott.  Gard.,  Apr., 
1863,  287. 

ARXAUD,  M.  Quelques  observations  sur  le  Gladiolus  Guepici.  Bull.  Soc.  Bot.  de 
France,  xxiv,  266. 

ASCHERSOX.     On  cleistogamic  flowers  in  Jnncus.     Bot.  Zeitung,  1871,  551. 

AXELL,  SEVERIX.  Oin  Anordniugarna  for  de  Fanerogama  -viixternas  Befruktning. 
Stockholm,  1869. 

BARSTOW,  J.  W.     Yucca,    Bull.  Torr.  Bot.  Club,  1872,  iii,  37. 

BAILEY,  W.  W.  (1.)  Bees  on  Gerardia  pedicularia.  Bull.  Torr.  Bot.  Cl.,  1871,  ii,  39. 
(2.)  Perforation  of  Gerardia  pedicularis  by  bees.  Am.  Naturalist,  1873,  vii,  689. 
(3.)  Apocyuuin.  Bull.  Ton1.  Bot.  Cl.,  1874,  v,  9.  (4.)  Dimorphism  [of  Bouvardia 
leiantha].  Bull.  Torr.  Bot.  CL,  1876,  vi,  106.  (5.)  Humble-bees  and  the  Gerardia 
flava.  Am.  Naturalist,  1879,  xiii,  649. 

BALSAMO,  J.  E.  Artificial  hybridization  in  the  genus  Gossypinm.  Comptes  Rendus 
1867,  763;  translated,  Ann.  Nat.  Hist.,  1868,  i,  155. 

BATALIX,  A.  Cleistogamous  llowers  in  the  Caryophyllaceae.  Acta  Horti  Petropoli- 
tani,  1878,  v. 

BATES,  H.  W.     The  Naturalist  on  the  River  Amazons.     London,  1876. 

BEAL,  W.  J.  (1. )  Agency  of  insects  in  fertilizing  plants.  Am.  Naturalist,  1867,  i,  254, 
403.  (2.)  The  fertilization  of  Gentians  by  humble-bees.  Am.  Naturalist,  1874, 
viii,  180,  226.  (3.)  Sensitive  stigmas  as  an  aid  to  cross  fertilization  of  flowers. 
Proc.  Am.  As.  Adv.  Sc.,  1876,  xxv;  Buffalo  Courier,  Aug.  25,  1876;  Silliman's 
Journal,  187G,  3.  ser.,  xii,  308.  (4.)  Insects  needed  to  fertilize  Utricularia  and 
Pyxidanthera.  Am.  Naturalist,  1878,  xii,  552.  (5.)  Experiments  in  cross-breed- 
ing plants  of  the  same  variety.  Silliman's  Journal,  1879,  3.  ser.,  xvii,  343, 

BECCARI.     On  the  fertilization  of  palms.     Revista  Botanica,  1877,  35. 

BELT,  THOMAS.    The  Naturalist  in  Nicaragua.     London,  1874. 


336  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

BEXXETT,  A.  TV.  (1.)  On  synacmy  and  heteracmy.  Lond.  Journ.  Bot.,  1870,  viii,  316. 
(2.)  On  Irnpatiens  fulva.  Lond.  Linn.  Soc.  Bot.,  1872,  xiii,  147.  (3.)  The  fer- 
tilization of  the  wild  pansy.  Nature,  1873,  viii,  49.  (4.)  The  fertilization  of 
Fumariaceae.  Nature,  1874,  ix,  484.  (5.)  Extraordinary  growth  of  Vallisneria 
spiralis.  Lond.  Jouru.  of  Botany,  1870;  Pop.  Sc.  Eeview,  Apr.,  1877,  208;  Am. 
Naturalist,  1876,  x,  110.  (6.)  How  Flowers  are  Fertilized.  1873. 

BEXTHAM,  GEORGE.  (1.)  On  Arachis  hypogala.  Linn.  Soc.,  1838,  (?).  (2.)  Additional 
note  on  Arachis  hypogala.  Sillimau's  Journal,  1855,  2.  ser.,  xx,  202 ;  from  Hooker's 
Journ.  of  Botany,  Nos.  77,  177.  (3.)  On  fertilization  in  the  Proteacere.  Journ. 
Linn.  Soc.  Bot.,  1871,  xiii,  58,  64. 

BESSEY,  C.  E.     Sensitive  stamens  in  Portulaca.    Am.  Naturalist,  1873,  vii,  464. 

BICKFORD,  ROBERT.  Honey-bee  killed  by  silk-weed  pollen.  Am.  Naturalist,  1869, 
ii,  665. 

BOXXIER,  GASTOX.  On  the  fertilization  of  floAvers  by  insects,  and  the  nature  and  uses 
of  nectar.  Bull.  Soc.  Bot.  de  France ;  abstract,  Prairie  Farmer,  Oct.  25,  1879,  338. 

BOULGER,  G-.  S.     Scent  and  color  in  flowers.    Nature,  1878,  xviii,  427. 

BRIGGS,  T.  R.  ARCHER.  Flowers  of  the  primrose  destroyed  by  birds.  Nature, 
1874,  ix,  509. 

BRITTOX.  Sensitiveness  of  stamens  of  Opuutia  vulgaris.  Bull.  Torr.  Bot.  Club,  1877, 
178. 

BROWX,  H.  G.  Charles  Darwin  iiber  die  Einrichtungen  zur  Befruchtung  britischer 
und  ausliindischer  Orchideen.  With  an  appendix  by  the  translator  on  Stanhopea 
devoniensis.  Stuttgart,  18S2. 

Bnowx,  ROBERT.  On  the  organs  and  mode  of  fecundation  in  Orchidea3  and  Ascle- 
piadere.  Linn.  Trans.,  1833,  xvi,  704. 

BUXDY,  W.  F.  Flowers  of  the  golden  currant  perforated  by  humble-bees.  Am. 
Naturalist,  1876,  x,  238. 

BUXTOX,  A.  F.    Flowers  of  the  primrose  destroyed  by  birds.    Nature,  1874,  x,  7. 

CASPAUY.    De  nectariis.    Bonne,  1848. 

CHAMBERS,  F.    Wasps  as  marriage-priests  to  plants.    Am.  Naturalist,  1867,  i,  105. 

CHEESEMAX,  T.  F.  (1.)  On  the  fertilization  of  the  New  Zealand  species  of  Pteros. 
tylis.  Trans.  New  Zealand  Institute,  1873,  v,  352.  (2.)  On  the  fertilization  of 
Acianthus  cyrtostilis.  Trans.  New  Zealand  lust.,  1874,  vii,  349.  (3.)  Fertiliza- 
tion of  Glossostigma  elatinoides.  Nature,  xvfi,  163. 

CLARAUD,  A.  Snr  le  veritable  mode  de  fiScondation  du  Zo.stora  marina.  Actes  de  la 
Soc.  Linn,  de  Bordeaux,  1878, 4.  ser.,  ii ;  abstract  in  Bot.  Zeitung,  1879,  No.  33, 535 

COMBER,  F.    The  fertilization  of  Fumariacese.    Nature,  1874,  ix,  484. 

COURTIS,  W.  M.     Dichogamy  in  Epilobium  angusti folium.     Am.  Naturalist,  1876,  x,  43. 

CR^GER.  A  few  notes  on  the  fecundation  of  Orchids,  and  their  morphology.  Journ. 
Linn.  Soc.  Bot.,  1864,  viii,  162. 

DAUWIX,  FRANCIS.    Bees  visiting  flowers.    Nature,  1874,  ix,  189. 

DARWIX,  CHARLES.  (1.)  On  the  Origin  of  Species  by  Means  of  Natural  Selection. 
London  and  New  York.  (2. )  The  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domesti- 
csilion.  London  and  New  York.  (3.)  On  the  Various  Contrivances  by  which 
Orchids  are  Fertilized  by  Insects.  London  and  New  York.  (4. )  On  the  Effects  of 
Cross  and  Self  Fertilization  in  the  Vegetable  Kingdom.  London  and  New  York. 
(5.)  The  Different  Forms  of  Flowers  on  Plants  of  the  Same  Species.  London  and 
New  York.  [Essays  first  published  in  the  Journ.  Linn.  Soc.]  (6.)  On  the  agency 
of  bees  in  the  fertilization  of  papilionaceous  flowers,  and  on  the  crossing  of  kid- 
ney-beans. Ann.  Nat.  Hist.,  1858,  3.  ser.,  ii,  459.  (7.)  Fertilization  of  Vincas. 
Gardener's  Chronicle,  1861,  552.  (8.)  Observations  sur  I'h6te"romorphisme  des 
fleurs,  et  ses  consequences  pour  la  fdcondation.  Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  1863,  4.  ser.,  xix, 
Bot.,  204.  (9.)  Notes  on  the  fertilization  of  Orchids.  Ann.  Mag.  Nat.  Hist.,  Sept., 


NECTAR   AND   ITS   USES.  337 

DARWIN,  CHARLES — Continued. 

1869.  (10.)  Fertilization  of  the  Fumariacese.  Nature,  1874,  ix,  460.  (11.)  Flow- 
ers of  the  primrose  destroyed  by  birds.  Nature,  1874,  ix,  482;  x,  24.  (12.)  On 
flowers  and  insects.  Nature,  1877,  xvii,  78. 

DE  CANDOLLE.    Organographie  vege'tale.    Paris,  1827. 

DELPINO,  F.  (1.)  Relazione  sull'apparecchio  della  fecondazine  nelle  asclepladee,  etc. 
Torino,  1865.  (2.)  On  the  fertilization  of  Cannas.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1867,  277 ;  Scien- 
tific Opinion,  1870,  135;  noticed  in  Am.  Naturalist,  1870,  242.  (3.)  Sugli  apparec- 
clii  della  fecondazione  nelle  piante  autocarpee.  Florence,  1867."  (4. )  Sull'opera  la 
distribuzione  dei  sessi  nelle  piante  del  Prof.  F.  Hildebrand;  note  critiche.  Milan, 
1867.  (5.)  Sulla  Darwiniana  teoria  della  pangenesi.  Torino,  1863.  (6.)  Ulteriori 
osservazione  sulla  dicogamia  nel  regno  vegetale.  Milan,  Parte  1, 1868-'9 ;  Parte  II, 
Fas.  1, 1870;  Fas.  H,  1875.  (7.)  Pensieri  sulla  biologia  vegetale.  Pisa,  1867.  (8.) 
Breve  cenno  sulle  relazioue  biologiche  e  genealogiche  delle  Marantacee.  Nuovo 
Giom.  Bot.  Ital.,  1869,  i,  No.  4.  (9.)  Altri  apparecchi  dicogamici  recentemente 
osservati.  Ibid.  (10.)  Alcuni  appunti  di  geografia  botanica  a  proposito  delle  ta- 
belle  fitogeographiclie  del  Prof.  Hoffmann.  Bolletino  della  Soc.  Geogr.  Ital.,  1869, 
Fas.  III.  (11.)  Applicazione  della  teoria  Darwiniana  ai  fiori  ed  agli  insetti  visita- 
tori  dei  fiore.  Discorso  pronunciato  dal  Dr.  Enn.  Miiller,  di  Lippstadt.  Versione 
dal  tedesco  e  annotazioni.  Boll.  Soc.  Ent.  Ital.,  1870,  ii,  Fas.  III.  (12.)  Sulle  pi- 
ante  a  bicckieri.  Nuovo  Giom.  Bot.  Ital.,  1871,  iii.  (13.)  Stella  dicogamia  vege- 
tale e  specialmente  su  quella  dei  Cereali.  Boll,  del  Comizio  Agr.  Parm.,  1871. 
(14.)  Studi  sopra  un  lignaggio  anemofilo  delle  Composte  ossia  sopra  il  gruppo  delle 
Artemisiacee.  Florence,  1871.  (15. )  The  relative  fertility  of  cross-fertilization  and 
self-fertilization.  Bennett,  in  Am.  Naturalist,  1876,  x,  744.  (16.)  Insert!  polari, 
pronubi  di  fiore.  Eivista  Botanica,  1877,  13. 

DICKIE, .    On  the  fertilization  of  Cannas.    Journ.  Linn.  Soc.,  x,  55. 

DOBBS.    Phil.  Trans.,  xlvi,  536. 

DYER,  W.  T.  THISTLETON.  (1. )  Heterogomy  of  Cratoxylon  fonnosum.  London  Journ. 
of  Botany,  1872,  i,  26.  (2.)  Flowers  of  the  primrose  destroyed  by  birds.  Nature, 
1874,  ix,  509.  (3.)  The  fertilization  of  Fumariacese.  Nature,  1874,  x,  5. 

EATON,  KEV.  I.  A.    Natural  history  of  Kerguelen's  Island.    Nature,  1875,  xii,  35. 

ENGELMANN,  GEO.  (1.)  The  flower  of  Yucca  and  its  fertilization.  Bull.  Torr.  Bot. 
Club,  1872,  iii,  33.  (2.)  Note  from  Dr.  Engelmann.  Ibid.,  37.  (3.)  See  also  hia 
monograph  of  the  Yuccas.  Trans.  St.  Louis  Acad.,  iii. 

EXGLER,  A.  (1.)  On  proterandrous  and  proterogynous  species  of  Saxifraga.  Bot.  Zei- 
tung, 1868,  833.  (2.)  Notiz  uberdie  Befruchtung  von  Zostera  marina,  und  daa 
Wachsthum  derselben.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1879,  No.  41,  654. 

ERRERA,  LEO.  Function  of  the  sterile  filament  of  Penstemon.  Silliman's  Journal, 
1879,  3.  ser.,  xvii,  411;  from  Bull.  Soc.  Roy.  Bot.  de  Belgique,  1879,  xvii  (with  140 
pages  on  the  structure  and  fecundation  of  flowers  in  general). 

EVANS,  M.  S.    Notes  on  some  Natal  plants.    Nature,  1878,  xviii,  543. 

EVERETT,  A.  H.    Fertilization  of  flowers  by  birds.    Nature,  xvi,  476. 

FAIVRE.    On  the  fertilization  of  Cannas.    Variability  des  Especes,  1868,  158.  . 

FARRER,  T.  H.  (1.)  On  the  manner  of  fertilization  of  the  scarlet  runner  and  blue 
Lobelia.  Ann.  Nat.  Hist.,  1868,  4.  ser.,  ii,  225.  (2.)  On  the  fertilization  of  a  few 
common  papilionaceous  flowers.  Nature,  1872,  vi,  478,  498.  (3.)  Fertilization  of 
papilionaceous  flowers — Coronilla.  Nature,  1874,  x,  169. 

FESTING,  E.  R.    Flowers  of  the  primrose  destroyed  by  birds.    Nature,  1874,  x,  6. 

FITZGERALD,  R.  D.  Australian  Orchids.  Sydney,  New  South  Wales,  Part  I,  1875, 
Part  II,  1876. 

FORBES,  H.  O.  ^  The  fertilization  of  Orchids.    Nature,  xvi,  102. 

FREEDEN,  W.  VON.    Yellow  crocuses.    Nature,  1877,  xvi,  43. 

FREYHOLD,  E.  VON.    Ueber  Bestiiubung  und  das  auftreten  mehrerrer  Antheren  bei 
Limodorum  abortionur.    Verhandl.  Bot.  Vereins  Prov.  Brandenberg,  1877.  ; 
220  I 


338  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

GENTRY,  THOMAS.  (1. )  Fertilization  of  Pedicularis  canadensis.  Ann.  Nat.  Hist.,  1873, 
4.  set.,  xii,  497;  from  Proc.  Acad.  Nat.  Sc.  Phila.,  June,  1873.  (2.)  The  fertili- 
zation of  certain  flowers  through  insect  agency.  Ain.  Naturalist,  1875,  ix,  263. 

GLADSTONE,  J.  H.  Flowers  of  the  primrose  destroyed  by  birds.  Nature,  1874, 
ix,  509. 

GOSSE,  P.  H.  Microscopic  observations  on  some  seeds  of  Orchids.  Journ.  of  Hortic. 
and  Cottage  Gardener,  1863,  287. 

GRAY,  ASA.     (1.)  Enumeration  of  plants  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.   Silliman's  Journal, 

1862.2.  ser.,xxxiv,  33.    (2.)  Review  of  Darwin's  work  on  Orchids,  with  observa- 
tions on  Platanthera Hookeri.     Ibid.,  143(?).     (3.)  Dimorphism  in  the  genitaliaof 
flowers.     Silliman's  Journal,  1862, 2.  ser. ,  xxxiv,  419.    (4. )  Fertilization  of  Orchids 
through  the  agency  of  insects.    Ibid.,  420.    (5.)  On  Platanthera  flava  and  Gymna- 
denia  tridentata.    Silliman's  Journal,  1863, 2.  ser. ,  xxxvi,  292.     (6. )  On  dimorphic 
species  of  Leucosomia  and  Drymispermum.     Seeman's  Journal  of  Botany,  1865, 
iii,  305.     (7. )  Dioico-dimorphism  in  the  primrose  family.     Silliman's  Journal,  18G5, 
2.ser.,xxxix,101.     (8.)  Observations  on  dimorphous  flowers.    Ibid.,  10 1.    (9.)  In- 
sects and  plant  fertilization.    Am.  Agriculturist,  1866,  xxv,  186,  257,  290,  324,  362, 
400,437.     (10.)  Notice  of  Hildebrand  on  the  necessity  of  insect  agency  in  the 
fertilization  of  Corydalis  cava.     Silliman's  Journal,  1866, 2.  ser.,  xlii,  131.    (11.)  On 
dimorphic  plants.    Proc.  Am.  Acad.  Arts  and  Sc.,  June  14, 1870.     (12.)  Arrangement 
for  cross-fertilization  of  the  flowers  of  Scrophularia  nodosa.     Silliman's  Journal, 

1871. 3.  ser.,  ii,  150.    (13.)  Delpino  on  the  fertilization  of  Coniferse  and  on  the  gene- 
alogy of  the  Artemisiaceous  tribe  of  Compositae,  as  deduced  from  their  mode  of  fer- 
tilization.   Silliman's  Journal,  1872, 3.  ser. ,  iii,  379.    (14. )  Dimorphism  in  Forsythia. 
Am.  Naturalist,  1873,  vii,  422.     (15.)  How  flowers  are  fertilized.    Am.  Agricultur- 
ist, 1876-7,  xxxv,  22, 62, 142, 182, 222, 262, 303, 382 ;  xxxvi ,  22, 62, 102, 182.    ( 16. )  Het- 
eromorphism  in  Epigsea.     Am.  Naturalist,  1876,  x,  490 ;  Silliman's  Journal,  1876, 3. 
ser.,  xii,  74.     (17.)  Subradical  solitary  flowers  in  Scirpus.     Silliman's  Journal,  1876, 
•3.  ser. ,  xii,  467.     (18. )  Fertilization  of  Gentiana  Andrewsii.     Am.  Naturalist,  1877, 
xi,  113.    (19.)  Gentiana  Andrewsii.    Bull.  Torr.  Bot.  Club.,  1877,  vi,179.     (20.) 
Homogone  and  heterogone  (or  homogenous  and  heterogonous)  flowers.     Silliman's 
Journal,  1877, 3.  ser. ,  xiii,  82 ;  Am.  Naturalist,  1877,  xi,  42.     (21. )  Notice  of  Darwin 
on  the  effects  of  cross  and  self  fertilization  in  the  vegetable  kingdom.    Silliman's 
Journal,  1877, 3.  ser.,  xiii,  125.   (22. )  Cleistogamy  in  Impatiens.   Silliman's  Journal, 
1877,  xiv,  497.     (23.)  How  Plants  Behave.    New  York,—.     (24.)  Botanical  Text 
Book  (Part,  I,  Structural  Botany).     New  York,  1879,  215.    (25.)  The  pertinacity 
and  predominance  of  weeds.    Silliman's  Journal,  1879, 3.  ser.,  xviii,  161. 

GREENE,  A.  C.    Apocynum  and  rosaemifoliuin.    Bull.  Torr.  Bot.  Club,  1875,  iv,  12. 

<}REENLEAF,  R.  W.  Fertilization  of  Posoqueria  longifolia.  Proc.  Bost.  Soc.  Nat.  Hist., 
1876,  xvii,  354. 

H.,  A.    Yellow  crocuses.    Nature,  1877,  xvi,  84. 

H.,  H.    Fertilization  of  Salix  repens.    Nature,  xvi,  184. 

HANKENSON,  E.  L.    Dimorphism  in  Claytonia.    Am.  Naturalist,  1876,  x,  44. 

HART,  W.  E.  (1.)  Ground  ivy.  Nature,  1873,  viii,  162.  (2.)  Fertilization  of  Cory- 
dalis clavieulata.  Nature,  1874,  x,  5.  (3.)  Flowers  of  the  primrose  destroyed  by 
birds.  Ibid.,  7. 

HENSCHEL.    Von  der  Sexnalitat.    Breslau,  1820. 

HENSLOW,  Rev.  GEO.  (1.)  Fertilization  of  Medicago.  Journ.  Linn.  Soc.,  1866,  328. 
(2.)  On  the  self-fertilization  of  plants.  Trans.  Linn.  Soc.,  1879, 2.  ser.,  i,  Bot.,  318; 
noticed  and  criticized  by  Dr.  Gray,  Silliman's  Journal,  1879,  3.  ser.,  xvii,  489. 
(3.)  The  self-fertilization  of  plants.  Pop.  Sc.  Review,  Jan.,  1879. 

HILDEBRAND,  F.  (1.)  Experiments  zum  Dimorphismus  von  Linum  perenne  und  Pri- 
mula sinensis.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1864.  (2. )  Experimente  zur  Dichogamie  und  zum  Di- 
morphismus. Bot.  Zeitung,  1865.  (3. )  Ueber  die  Befruchtung  der  Salviaarten  mit 
Httlfe  von  Insekten.  .  Pringsheim's  Jahrbucher  fur  wiss.  Bot.,  1865,  iv,  451.  (4.) 


NECTAR   AND   ITS   USES.  339 

HILDEBRAND,  F.— Continued. 

Ueber  die  Befruchtung  von  Aristolochia  clematitis  und  einiger  anderer  Aristo- 
lochiaarten.  Jahrb.  wiss.  Bot.,  1866,  v,  343.  (5.)  Ueber  die  Vorrichtungen  an 
einigen  Bluthen  zur  Befruchtung  durch  Insektenhiilfe.  Bot.  Zeitung,  18(56,  No. 
10.  (6.)  Ueber  die  Nothwendigkeit  der  Insektenhiilfe  bei  der  Befruchtung  von 
Corydalis  cava.  Jahrb.  wins.  Bot.,  1866,  v.  (7.)  Ueber  die  Befruchtuug  von 
Asclepias  cornuti.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1866,  No.  48.  (8. )  Ueber  den  Trimorphismus  in 
der  Gattung  Oxalis.  Monatsberichte  der  Acad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Berlin,  1866. 
(9.)  Die  GeschlechterVertheilungbeidenPflanzen.  Leipzig,  1867.  (10.)  Frede- 
rigo  Delpino's  Beobachtungen  iiber  die  Bestaubungsvorrichtungen  bei  den  Phane- 
rogaraen.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1867,  No.  34,  265.  (11.)  Notizen  iiber  die  Geschlechtsver- 
haltnisse  brasilianischer  Pflanzen,  aus  einem  Briefe  von  Fritz  Miiller.  Bot.  Zei- 
tung, 1868,  No.  8, 113.  (12. )  Ueber  die  Gesehlechtsverhaltnisse  bei  den  Compositen. 
Verhandl.  der  Leop.  Carol.  Ac.,  1869.  (13.)  Weitere  Beobachtungen  iiber  die  Be- 
Btiiubungsverhultnisse  an  Bluthen.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1869,  Nos.  29,  31.  (14.)  Ueber 
die  Bestaubungsvorrichtungen  bei  den  Fumariaceen.  Jahrb.  wiss.  Bot.,  J.869,  vii; 
noticed,  Am.  Naturalist,  1871,  117.  (15.)  Delpino's  weitere  Beobachtungen.  Mit 
Zusiitzen  und  Illustrationen.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1870,  Nos.  37,  42.  (16.)  Experimente 
nnd  Beobachtungen  an  trimorphen  Oxalisarten.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1871.  (17.)  On 
the  fertilization  of  grasses.  Monatsberichte  der  Akad.,  Berlin,  1872,  743. 

HOOKER  and  THOMSON.     On  cleistogamic  flowers.    Journ.  Linn.  Soc.,  1857,  ii,  7. 

HUBBARD,  H.  G.    Cross-fertilization  of  Aristolochia.    Am.  Naturalist,  1877,  xi,  303. 

HUNT,  J.  G,  Sensitive  organs  in  the  flowers  of  Asclepiads.  Acad.  Nat.  Sc.  Phila., 
Aug.  27,  1878 ;  abstract  in  Pop.  Sc.  Review,  Jan.,  1879, 89,  and  Bull.  Torr.  Bot. 
Club,  1878,  vi,  280. 

JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER.  On  Orchid  cultivation,  cross- 
breeding, and  hybridizing.  1863,  206. 

KERNER,  A.  (1.)  Die  Schutzmittel  des  Pollens.  Innspruck,  1873.  See,  also,  abstract 
in  Bibliotheque  Universelle,  1873,  xlvii,  302;  translated  in  Ann.  Nat.  Hist.,  1873, 
4.  ser.,  xii,  431.  (2.)  Schutzmittel  der  Bluthen  gigen  nubernfene  Giiste.  Vienna, 
1876.  Reviewed  in  Nature,  1877,  xv,  237.  Translated  into  English:  Flowers  and 
their  Unbidden  Guests.  London,  1878.  Translation  reviewed  in  Nature,  1879,  xix, 
214. 

KEY,  Rev.  H.  C.    Flowers  of  the  primrose  destroyed  by  birds.    Nature,  1874,  ix,  509. 

KIRBY  and  SPENCE.     Introduction  to  Entomology.     London,  7th  edition,  1856,  168. 

KIRK.     On  cleistogamic  flowers  of  Mouochoria  vaginalis.    Journ.  Linn.  Soc. ,  1864,  viii, 

KIRKPATRICK,  J.     Honey-bees  killed  by  pollen.     Am.  Naturalist,  1870,  iii,  109. 

KITCHENER,  F.  E.  (1.)  Fertilization  of  the  pansy;  ground  ivy.  Nature,  1873,  viii, 
143.  (2. )  On  cross-fertilization  as  aided  by  sensitive  motion  in  Musk  and  Achi- 
tnenes.  Trimen's  Journ.  of  Botany ;  copied  in  Am.  Naturalist,  1873,  vii,  478. 

KNIGHT,  ANDREW. .    Philosoph.  Trans.,  1799. 

KOBRENTER.  (1.)  Vorlanfigen  Nachricht  von  einigen  das  Geschlecht  der  Pflanzen 
betreffenden  Versuchen  und  Beobachtungen.  Leipzig,  1761.  (2.)  Fortsetzung 
der  Vorlii.ufigen  Nachricht.  Leipzig,  1763.  (3.)  Ann.  Bot.,  ii,  9. 

KUHN.     On  cleistogamic  flowers  in  Vandellia.     Bot.  Zeitung,  1867,  xxv,  65, 

KUNZE,  OTTO.  Die  Schutzmittel  der  Pflanzen  gegen  Thiere  und  Wetterungunst. 
Leipzig,  1877. 

KURR.     Untersuchimgen  iiber  die  Bedeutung  der  Nektarien.     1833. 

LEGGETT,  W.  H.  (1.)  Aristolochia  serpentaria.  Bull.  Torr.  Bot.  Club,  1870,  i,  3. 
(2.)  Honey-bee  killed  by  Asclepias  pollen.  Am.  Naturalist,  1870,  iii,  3^8.  (3.) 
Bees  puncturing  flowers.  Bull.  Torr.  Bot.  Club,  1872,  iii,  33.  (4.)  Fertilization 
of  Asclepias.  Ibid.,  34.  (5.)  Apocynum,  No.  1.  Ibid.,  46.  (6.)  Apocynum,  No 


340  REPORT  UPON  COTTON -INSECTS. 

LEGGETT,  W.  H.— Continued. 

2.  Ibid.,  49.  (7.)  Apocynum,  No.  3.  Ibid.,  53.  (8.)  Apocynum,  No.  4.  Bull. 
Torr.  Bot.  Club,  1873,  iv,  1.  (9.)  Apocynum,  No.  5.  Ibid.,  23.  (10.)  Pontederia 
cordata.  Bull.  Torr.  Bot.  Club,  1875,  vi,  62,  170.  (11.)  Cassia,  Ibid.,  171. 

LOCHE,  M.  A.  Note  sur  un  fact  anomal  de  fructification  cliez  quelques  Balsamindes. 
BuU.  Soc.  Bot.  de  France,  1876,  xxiii,  367. 

LUBBOCK,  SIR  JOHN.  (1.)  On  British.  Wild  Flowers  Considered  in  Relation  to  Insects. 
London,  1875.  (2.)  Scientific  Lectures.  London,  1879.  Lecture  I :  On  flowers 
and  insects. 

LUDWIG,  F.  Ueber  die  Kleistogamie  von  Collomia  grandiflora.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1877, 
777. 

M.,  C.  A.    Bullfinches  and  primroses.    Nature,  xiii,  427. 

MARES  and  PLANCHOX.  On  the  flowering  and  fructification  of  the  vine.  Ann.  Nat. 
Hist.,  1867,  3.  set.,  xix,  220. 

MARTINET,  J.  Organes  de  s6cre~tion  des  v6ge"aux  (Chap.  V :  Glandes  Florales).  Ann. 
des  Sciences  Naturelles,  1872,  5.  ser.,  xiv,  Bot.,  209. 

MARTIXDALE,  I.  C.  Cleistogamous  flowers  of  Danthonia.  Am.  Naturalist,  1878,  xii, 
388. 

MEEHAX,  THOMAS  (1.)  On  dioicism  in  Epigala  repens.  Proc.  Acad.  Nat.  Sc.  Phila., 
May,  1868,  153.  (2.)  On  dioecious  forms  of  Mitchella.  Ibid.,  July  28,  1868,  183. 
(3.)  On  the  fertilization  of  Petunias  by  nocturnal  lepidoptera.  Proc.  Acad.  Nat. 
Sc.  Phila.,  Aug.  2, 1870,  90.  (4.)  On  objections  to  Darwin's  theory  of  fertilization 
through  insect  agency.  Proc.  Am.  As.  Adv.  Sc.,  1870,  xix.  280.  (5.)  Dimorph- 
ism in  Dentzia.  Am.  Naturalist,  1871,  v.  161.  (6.)  Contrivance  in  the  corolla 
of  Salvia  involucrata.  Ibid.,  161.  (7.)  On  the  lever-like  anthers  in  Sal  via.  Ibid., 
782.  (8.)  Cross-fertilization  and  the  laws  of  sex  in  Euphorbia.  Ann.  Nat.  Hist., 

1871,  4.  ser.,  vi,  191.    (9.)  On  the  flowers  of  Aralia  spiuosa  and  Hedera  helix. 
Ann.  Nat.  Hist.,  1871,  4.  ser.,  vii,  315.     (10.)  Fertilization  of  Pedicular! s  cana- 
densis.    Proc.  Acad.  Nat.  Sc.  Phila.,  June,  1873;  Ann.  Nat.  Hist.,  1873,  4.  ser,  xii, 
497.     (11.)  Fertilization  of  the  Yucca.      Bull.  Torr.  Botan.  Club,  1873,  iv,  63. 
(12.)    On  movement  in  the  stigmatic  lobes  of  Catalpa.    Proc.  Am.  As.  Adv.  Sc., 

1873,  xxii,  72.     (13.)  Are  insects  any  material  aid  to  plants  in  fertilization? 
Proc.  Am.  As.  Adv.  Sc.,  1875,  xxiv,  243;  criticised  in  Silliman's  Journal,  1876,  3. 
ser.,  xii,  397.     (14.)  On  self-fertilizing  flowers.    Proc.  Acad.  Nat.  Sc.  Phila.,  May 
16,  1876,  84.     (15.)  On  self-fertilization  and  cross-fertilization  in  flowers.     Proc. 
Am.  As.  Adv.  Sc.,  1876,  xxv,  253.     (16.)  Gentiana  Andrewsii.    Bull.  Torr.  Bot. 
Club,  1877,  vi,  189.     (17.)  Varying  experiences.    Nature,  1878,  xviii,  334. 

MICHELI.     On   some  recent  researches  in  vegetable   physiology.     Ann.  Nat.  Hist., 

1872,  ix,  233;  translated  from  Bibliotheque  Universello. 

MIKAN.     Eine  von  Dott ;  Gussone  auf  europiiischen  Boden  entdeckte  Stapelia.     1834. 

MOGGRIDGE,  J.  T.  (1.)  Observations  on  some  Orchids  of  the  south  of  France. 
Journ.  Linn.  Soc.,  1865,  viii,  256.  (2.)  On  Ophrys.  Flora  of  Mentone,  1867,  (?), 
Plates  43-45.  (3.")  Ueber  Ophrys  iusectifera.  Verhandhmgen  der  Kais.  Leop. 
Carol.  Akad.,  1869,  xxxv.  (4.)  Fertilization  of  the  Fuuuariaceae.  Nature,  1874, 

1874,  ix,  423 ;  x,  5. 

MOHL,  H.  vox.  (1.)  On  cleistogamic  flowers.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1863,  xxi,  309.  (2.) 
Einige  Beobachtungen  Uber  diinorphc  Bliithen.  Bot.  Zeitung,  Oct.,  1863  ;  trans- 
lated in  Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  Bot.,  Apr.  1864. 

MOORE,  S.  (1.)  The  fertilization  of  Fnmariaceae.  Nature,  1874,  ix,  484.  (2.)  Bud 
fertilization  in  Orchids.  Journal  of  Botany,  Feb.,  1877, 57. 

MORREN,  ED.     On  Anchnsa  sanfervirens.    La  Belgique  Horticole,  1877,  xxvii,  12. 

MILLER,  D.     On  cleistogamic  flowers.     Bot.  Zeitung,  1857,  xvi,  730. 


NECTAR   AND   ITS   USES.  341 

MULLER,  FRITZ.  (1.)  Ueber  die  Befruclitung  der  Martha  (Posoqueria)  fragrans. 
Bot.  Zeitung,  1866,  129.  (2.)  Notizen  iiber  die  GescL.lecb.tsverb.iiltnes.se 
brasilianischer  Pflanzen.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1868,  113.  (3.)  Befrucbtungsversuche 
an  Cip6  albo  (Bignouia).  Ibid.,  625.  (4.)  Ueber  Befrachtungsesscheiuungen 
bei  Orchideen.  Ibid.,  629.  (5.)  On  Faramaea.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1869,  603.  (6.) 
Uinwandlung  von  Staubgef lissen  in  Stempel  bei  Begonia ;  Uebergang  von  Zwit- 
terbliithigkeit  in  Getrenntbliitbigkeit  bei  Chamissoa;  Triandriscbe  Varietiit 
eines  monandrischen  Epidendrum.  Bot.  Zeitung,  1870,  149.  (7.)  Ueber  den 
Trimorphismus  der  Pontederien.  Jenaische  Zeitschrift,  vi,  Heft  I.  (8.)  On  fer- 
tilization of  Abutilon  hybrids.  Jenaische  Zeitschr. ,  1872, 22 ;  1873, 441.  (9. )  Inves- 
tigations respecting  the  fertilization  of  Abutilon.  Am.  Naturalist,  1874,  viii,  223. 
(10.)  On  flowers  and  insects.  Nature, -1876,  xiii,  305.  (11.)  Ueber  Haarpinsel, 
Filzflecke,  und  ahnliche  Gebilde  auf  den  Fliigeln  mannlicher  Schmetterlinge. 
Jen.  Zeitschr.,  Bd.  XI,  N.  P.  IV,  i.  99-114.  (12.)  Die  Duftschuppender  mlinnlichen 
Maracujafalter.  Kosmos,  i,  Heft  V,  391.  (13.)  Die  Duftschuppen  des  Miinnchens 
von  Dione  Vanillse.  Ibid.,  Heft  VII,  38.  (14.)  Uo  hat  der  Moschusduft  seinen 
Sitz  ?  Kosmos,  ii,  Heft  I,  84.  (15.)  Biumender  Luft.  Ibid.,  Heft  II,  187.  (16.) 
In  Blumeu  gefangene  Schwarmer.  Ibid.,  178. 

MtiLLER,  HERMANN.  (1.)  Beobachtungen  an  westfalischen  Orchideen.  Verhaud- 
lungen  des  nat.  Vereins  fur  pr.  Eheinl.  und  Westf.,  1868-'69.  (2.)  Application  of 
the  Darwinian  theory  to  flowers  and  the  insects  which  visit  them.  English 
translation  from  the  Italian  translation  of  Delpino.  Am.  Naturalist,  1871,  v,  271. 
(3. )  Befruchtung  der  Blumen  durch  Insekten,  und  die  gegenseitigen  Anpassungen 
beider.  Leipzig,  1873 ;  reviewed  in  Am.  Naturalist,  1873,  vii,  680,  from  Bennett, 
in  The  Academy.  (4.)  The  fertilization  of  flowers  by  insects.  Nature,  1873-77, 
viii,  186,  205,  433 ;  ix,  44,  164 ;  x,  129 ;  xi,  32, 110,  169 ;  xii,  50,  190 ;  xiii,  210,  289 ; 
xv,  317,  473.  (5.)  Fertilization  of  the  Fumariaceas.  Nature,  1874,  ix,  460;  x,  5. 
(6.)  Ground  ivy.  Nature,  1873,  viii,  161.  (7.)  Alpine  flowers.  Nature,  1878, 
xviii,  519.  (8.)  Ueber  den  Ursprung  der  Blumen.  Kosmos,  i,  100-114;  ii,  395. 
(9.)  Das  Variiren  der  Grosse  gefiirbter  Bliithenhiillen  und  seine  Wirkung  auf  die 
Naturzuchtuug  der  Blumen.  Kosmos,  ii,  11-25,  128-139.  (10.)  Wie  hat  die 
Honigbiene  ihre  geistige  Bef  iihigung  erlangt  ?  Eichstiidter  Bienenzeitung,  1875, 
Nos.  12,  13,  and  14 ;  1876,  Nos.  2,  10,  11,  and  14.  (11.)  Anweudung  der  Darwin'- 
schen  Lehre  auf  Bienen.  Verhandl.  naturh.  Vereins,  pr.  RheinL  und  Westf., 
1872.  (12.)  Die  Insekten  als  unbewusste  Blumenzuchter.  Kosmos,  iii,  Heft  IV- 
VI;  abstract  in  Am.  Naturalist,  1879,  xiii,  257.  (13.)  Die  Wechselbeziehungen 
zwischen  den  Blumen  und  den  ihre  Kreuzung  vermittelnden  Insekten.  Schenk's 
Handbuch  der  Botanik,  1-112;  abstract  in  Am.  Naturalist,  1879,  xiii,  451.  (14.) 
Bombus  inastrucatus,  ein  Dysteleolog  unter  den  alpinen  Blumenbesuchern.  Kos- 
mos, iii,  Heft  VI.  (15.)  Weitere  Beobachtungen  iiber  Befruchtung  der  Blumen 
durch  Insekten.  Verhandlung  des  nat.  Vereins  der  pr.  Kheinl.  und  Westf.,  1879, 
xxxv,  4;  Folge,  v,  Bd.  (16.)  On  Primula  farinosa.  Sitzungsberichten  des  bot. 
Vereins  der  Prov.  Brandenburg,  Nov.  29,  1878. 

NAGELI.  On  odors  and  colors  attractive  to  insects.  Entstehung  der  Nat.  Hist.  Arten; 
1865,  23. 

NEISLER,  HUGH  M.  Observations  on  the  fructification  of  the  Arachis  hypogse. 
Silliman's  Journal,  1855,  2.ser.,xix,212. 

NEWTON.    Flowers  of  the  primrose  destroyed  by  birds.    Nature,  1874,  x,  6. 

OGLE.  (1.)  The  fertilization  of  Salvia  and  of  some  other  flowers.  Pop.  Sc.  Review, 
July,  1869,  261.  (2.)  The  fertilization  of  certain  plants  (Didynamia).  Pop.  Sc. 
Eeview,  Jan.,  1870,  45.  (3.)  The  fertilization  of  various  flowers  by  insects  (Coin- 
positse,  Ericaceae,  &c.).  Pop.  Sc.  Review,  Apr. ,  1870, 160. 

OLIVER.    On  cleistogamous  flowers.    Nat.  Hist.  Review,  1862, 238. 


342  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

PLAXCHOX.    On  dimorphic  species  of  Linum.     London  Journ.  of  Botany,  1848,  vii, 

174. 
Poissox,  M.  J.     Sur  deux  nouvellea  plantes-pie"ge8.     Bull.  Soc.  Bot.  de  France,  xxiv, 

23. 

POTTS,  EDWARD.  Sensitive  organs  in  the  flowers  of  Asclepiads.  Acad.  Nat.  Sc. 
Phila.,  Aug.  27, 1878 ;  abstract  in  Pop.  Sc.  Review,  Jan.,  1879, 89. 

PRIXGLE,  C.  G.  Cleistogamons  flowers  in  Danthonia.  Am.  Naturalist,  1878,  xii,248; 
Nature,  1878,  xviii,  253 ;  Silliman's  Journal,  Jan.,  1878, 71. 

REDFIELD,  JOHN  H.  Fertilization  of  Asarum  canadense.  Bull.  Torr.  Bot.  Club,  1873, 
iv,  21. 

REICHEXBACH,  H.  G.    Bud-fertilization  in  Orchids.    Journal  of  Botany,  Mar. ,  1877, 85. 

RILEY,  C.  V.  (1.)  On  the  opposition  of  the  Yucca  moth.  Am.  Naturalist,  1873,  vii,  G19. 
(2.)  On  a  new  genus  in  the  lepidopterus  family  Tineidse,  with  remarks  on  the 
fertilization  of  Yucca.  Trans.  St.  Louis  Acad.,  1873,  iii,  55  ;  abstract  in  Am.  Nat- 
uralist, 1873,  vii,  475.  (3.)  Supplementary  notes  on  Pronuba  yuccasella.  Trans. 
St.  Louis  Acad.,  1873,  iii,  178.  (4.)  On  the  oviposition  of  the  Yucca  moth.  Ibid., 
208.  (5.)  Further  remarks  on  Pronuba  ynocasella,  and  on  the  pollination  of 
Yucca.  Ibid.,  568.  (6.)  Capture  of  Sphyngidse  by  Physianthus  albens.  Ibid.,  cxv. 

RIMPAU,  W.  (1.)  Die  Ziichtung  neuer  Getreidevarietaten.  Laudwirtsch.  Jahrb., 
1877,  vi,  199.  (2.)  Die  Selbststerilitat  des  Roggens.  Landwirtschaftliche  Jahrb., 
1877,  vi,  1073. 

ROHRBACH,  P.    Ueber  Epipogium  gmelini.    Gekrimte  Preisschrift,  Gottingen,  1866. 

ROTHROCK.    The  fertilization  of  flowering  plants.    Am.  Naturalist,  1867,  i,  64. 

RUSSEL,  I.  C.    The  fertilization  of  Wisteria.    Am.  Naturalist,  1879,  xiii,  648. 

S.,  E.  T.    Flowers  of  the  primrose  destroyed  by  birds.    Nature,  1874,  ix,  509. 

SACHS,  JULIUS.  Text  Book  of  Botany.  Translated  and  annotated  by  A.  W.  Bennett, 
assisted  by  W.  T.  T.  Dyer,  Oxford,  at  the  Clarendon  press,  1875.  Phenomena  of 
sexual  reproduction,  p.  801. 

SAPORTA,  GASTOX  DE.  Le  inonde  des  plants  avant  1'apparition  de  rhomme.  14-pago 
review  by  Lesquereux,  Silliman's  Journal,  1879,  4.  ser.,  xvii,  270. 

SCHELVER.    Kritik  der  Lehre  von  der  Geschlechtern  der  Pflanzen.    Heidelberg,  1812. 

ScHULTZ-ScnULTZENSTEix.    Die  Fortpflanzung  und  Emiilirang  der  Pflanzen.     1828. 

SCOTT,  JOHX.  (1.)  Observations  on  the  functions  and  structure  of  the  reproductive 
organs  in  the  Primulaceaj.  Journal  Linn  Soc.  Bot.,  1864,  viii.  (2.)  On  the 
individual  sterility  and  cross-impregnation  of  certain  species  of  Oncidium.  Jour- 
nal Linn  Soc.,  1864,  viii,  162.  (3.)  On  different  kinds  of  flowers  in  a  single  in- 
florescence. London  Journal  Bot.,  1872,  i,  161. 

SCUDDER,  J.  H.    On  Pogonia  ophioglassoides.    Proc.  Boston  Soc.  Nat.  Hist.,  1863,  ix. 

SEABROKE,  G.  SI.    Flowers  of  the  primrose  destroyed  by  birds.    Nature,  1874,  ix,  509. 

SHAW,  JAMES.    Yellow  crocuses.    Nature,  1877,  xvi,  9. 

SOUTHWELL,  J.    Flowers  of  the  primrose  destroyed  by  birds.    Nature,  1874,  x.,  6. 

SPREXGEL,  CHRISTTAX  KOXRAD.  Das  eutdeckte  Geheimniss  der  Natur  im  Ban  und  in 
der  Befruchfcung  der  Blnmen.  Berlin,  1793. 

STKBBIXG.  T.  R.    Flowers  of  the  primrose  destroyed  by  birds.     Nature,  1874,  ix,  509. 

STRASBURGER,  E.    Die  Besttiubung  der  Coniferen.    Jen.  Zeitschr.,  1871,  vi,  249. 

TAYLOR,  J.  E.  (1.)  The  geological  antiquity  of  flowers  and  insects.  Pop.  Science 
Review,  Jan.,  1878, 36.  (2.)  Flowers:  Their  Origin,  Shapes,  Perfumes,  and  Colors. 
Boston,  1878. 

TEGETMEIR,  W.  B.  Color-sense  in  birds — blue  and  yellow  crocuses.  Nature,  1877, 
xvi,  163. 

THURBER,  GEO.    A  cruel  flower— the  bladder-flower.    Am.  Agric.,  1877,  xxxvi,  180. 

TODD,  J.  E.  On  certain  contrivances  for  cross-fertilization  in  flowers.  Am.  Natural- 
ist, 1879,  xiii,  1. 


NECTAR   AND   ITS   USES.  343 

TRELEASE,  WM.  (1.)  On  the  fertilization  of  several  species  of  Lobelia.  Am.  Natu- 
ralist, 1879,  xiii,  427.  (2.)  On  the  fertilization  of  Symplocarper  fcetidus.  Am. 
Naturalist,  1879,  xiii,  580.  (3.)  The  fertilization  of  our  native  species  of  Clitoria 
and  Centrosema.  Am.  Naturalist,  1879,  xiii,  688. 

TREVIRANUS.  (1.)  Die  Lehre  von  Geschlecht  der  Pflanzen  im  Bezug  auf  die  neuesten 
Angriffe.  (2.)  Ueber  Dichogamie  nach  C.  C.  Sprengel  and  Chas.  Darwin.  Bot. 
Zeit.,  1863,  No.  2.  (3.)  On  heterostylid  species  of  Linum.  Bot.  Zeit.,  1863,  S. 
189.  (4.)  Nachtragliche  Bemerkungen  tiber  die  Befzuchtung  einiger  Orchideen. 
Bot.  Zeit.,  1863,  No.  32,241. 

TRIMEN,  R.  (1. )  On  the  fertilization  of  Disa  grandiflora.  Journ,  Linn,  Soc,  Bot.,  1863, 
vii,  144.  (2. )  On  the  structure  of  Bonatea  speciosa,  with  reference  to  its  fertiliza- 
tion. Journ.  Linn.  Soc.,  1865,  ix,  156. 

VANSENBURG,  M.  W.    Gentiana  Andrewsii.    Am.  Naturalist,  1865,  ix,  310. 

WALLACE,  A.  R.  (1.)  On  the  peculiar  relations  of  plants  and  insects  as  exhibited  on 
islands.  Nature,  No.  358,  406.  (2.)  Bees  killed  by  Tritoma.  Nature,  xvii,  45. 
(3.)  Tropical  Nature  and  other  Essays.  London,  1878.  (4.)  The  Malay  Archi- 
pelago. London,  1872. 

WARD,  LESTER  F.     On  Sabbatia  angularis.    Meehan's  Gardener's  Monthly,  1878,  278. 

WARMING,  EUG.  Smaa  biologiske  og  morfologiske  Bidrag.  Bot.  Tidsskrift,  Kjoben- 
havn,  1877. 

WEALE,  J.  P.  MANSEL.  Notes  on  the  structure  and  fertilization  of  the  genus  Bonatea. 
Journ.  Linn.  Soc.  Bot.,  1867,  x,  470.  (2.)  Note  on  a  species  of  Disperis  found 
on  the  Kageberg,  South  Africa.  Journ.  Linn.  Soc.  Bot.,  1871,  xiii,  42.  (3.) 
Some  observations  on  the  fertilization  of  Disa  mac-rant  ha.  Ibid.,  45.  (4.)  Notes 
on  some  species  of  Habenaria  found  in  South  Africa.  Ibid.,  47. 

WESTWOOD.     On  the  fertilization    of  the  fig.    Trans.   Ent.  Soc.,  London,  ii,  214. 

WEST  OF  SCOTLAND  HORTICULTURAL  MAGAZINE.  Fertilization  of  Orchids.  Sept., 
1863, 65. 

WILLDENOW.    Grundriss  der  Kraut  erkunde,  353. 

WILSON,  ALEX.  S.  (1.)  On  the  nectar  of  flowers.  Kept.  Brit,  As.  Adv.  Sc,,  1878,  567. 
(2. )  Notes  on  some  dimorphic  plants.  Ibid.,  568.  (3. )  Some  mechanical  arrange- 
ments subserving  cross-fertilization  of  plants  by  insects.  Ibid.,  568. 

WOOD,  ALPHOXSO,    Cleistogene  flowers.    Bull.  Torr.  Bot.  Club,  1877,  vi,  174, 

WOOD  AND  STEELE.    Fourteen  Weeks  in  Botany.    New  York,  1879. 

WRIGHT,  CHARLES.  Cross-fertilization  [of  Posoqueria].  Am.  Naturalist,  1868,  ii, 
437. 

YOUNG,  H.  W.    Fertilization  of  Gerardia  flava.    BulL  Torr.  Bot.  Club,  1873,  iv,  41. 


In  the  appendices  will  be  found  a  large  amount  of  the  material  which  has  been 
drawn  upon  in  generalizing  for  the  main  body  of  the  report,  and  which  we  have  left 
in  its  original  form  for  accurate  reference.  Many  interesting  additional  facts  will 
also  be  found  which,  not  bearing  directly  on  the  subject  in  hand,  have  not  been  incor- 
porated into  the  body  of  the  report. 


345 


I. 


REPORTS  OF  SPECIAL  AGENTS  AND  LOCAL  OBSERVERS. 

In  this  appendix  will  be  found  the  reports  of  Prof.  A.  K.  Grote,  Mr.  E. 
A.  Schwarz,  Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Judge  William  J.  Jones,  Prof.  J.  E. 
Willet,  and  Mr.  William  Trelease.  My  own  report  on  my  observations 
during  the  season  of  1878,  having  formed  the  basis  of  the  present  report, 
will  not  here  be  incorporated.  Prof.  E.  A.  Smith,  of  Tuscaloosa,.Ala., 
as  local  observer,  made  an  extended  series  of  observations,  the  results 
of  which  were  very  important.  But  as  these  results  were  communicated 
to  the  department  from  time  to  time  as  they  were  obtained,  Professor 
Smith  did  not  make  a  formal  report. 


REPORT  OF  E.  A.  SCHWARZ,  OF  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

SIR  :  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  herewith  a  preliminary  report  on  the  insects  living 
on  or  injurious  to  the  cotton-plant  on  the  Bahamas. 

The  cultivation  of  the  cotton-plant  dates  back  to  the  beginning  of  last  century. 
Catesby,  who  visited  the  Bahamas  in  1720,  mentions  that  the  cotton-plant  was  at  that 
lime  perennial  and  growing  without  cultivation  on  the  island  of  New  Providence . 
From  this  remote  time  up  to  1H34  a  considerable  amount  of  cotton  was  raised  on  almost 
all  the  larger  islands.  Very  little  information  regarding  cotton  insects  in  this  oldest 
period  can  be  obtained  at  the  present  time.  What  facts  I  have  been  able  to  obtain 
will  be  mentioned  below. 

In  the  year  1834  the  cotton  cultivation  was  suddenly  and  completely  abandoned  in 
consequence  of  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves.  The  only  relic  of  the  cotton  culti- 
vation in  slavery  times  is  the  wild  cotton  tree,  called  "  fly-away  cotton  "  by  the  inhab- 
itants of  Long  Island,  and  which  I  saw  occasionally,  though  not  often,  on  the  more 
elevated  hills  of  this  island.  It  is  a  very  tall  shrub,  or  rather  tree,  from  15  to  20  feet 
in  height.  The  bolls  of  this  wild  cotton  are,  however,  very  small,  and  the  cotton  is 
full  of  seeds  and  unfit  for  ginning. 

The  outbreak  of  the  civil  war  in  the  United  States  caused  a  very  vigorous  resump- 
tion of  cotton  raising  on  the  Bahamas.  In  1863  an  American  company  erected  a  steam 
gin  in  the  southern  extremity  of  Long  Island,  and  the  colonial  government  distributed 
at  the  same  time  seven  hand  gins  (Eagle  gins)  for  the  free  use  of  the  planters  of  Long 
Island  and  Great  Exuma.  Almost  immediately  after  the  conclusion  of  the  war  this 
industry  began  to  decline,  owing  partly  to  the  indo'ence  of  the  natives,  partly  to  the 
increasing  ravages  of  the  cotton-bug,  and  at  the  present  time  it  is  confined  to  Exuma 
and  especially  to  Long  Island. 

The  American  company  broke  up  its  establishment  in  1866,  and  of  the  seven  gins 
furnished  by  the  government  only  two  are  in  use  now,  and  both  of  these  On  Long 
1*1  and. 

But  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  cotton  culture  of  the  present  time,  insignificant  as  it 
may  be  compared  with  that  of  a  single  county  of  the  Southern  States,  is  firmly  estab- 
lished on  Long  Island.  A  large  portion  of  the  population,  which  amounts  to  about 
3,000  souls,  depends  for  its  living  entirely  upon  the  income  derived  from  cotton  culture. 
Moreover,  the  large  number  of  sheep  which  are  raised  on  that  island,  and  which  are  the 
most  important  article  of  export  except  sponges,  are  fed  exclusively  with  cotton  seeds. 
The  amount  of  cotton  raised  at  present  on  the  Bahamas  does  not,  in  my  estimation, 
exceed  150  bales. 

I  took  the  first  opportunity  that  offered  itself  to  proceed  to  that  island,  which  I 
reached  on  the  31st  of  March,  after  a  tedious  voyage  of  more  than  three  days  in  a 
small  open  sailing-boat. 

Long  Island,  which,  like  the  other  islands  of  that  archipelago,  is  composed  of  honey- 

347 


348  REPORT   UPON  COTTON   INSECTS. 

combed  coral  limestone,  extends  about  65  miles  from  north  to  south,  with  a  width 
varying  from  2  to  15  miles.  The  settlements  and  fields  are  scattered  over  the  whole 
island,  which  is  very  hilly,  and  entirely  covered  with  dense  shrubbery.  A  "field," 
when  cleared  of  these  shrubs,  presents  the  aspect  of  a  perfectly  grayish-white  rock, 
apparently  without  any  soil.  However,  in  the  numerous  cracks  and  "pockets"  of  the 
rocjc  some  humus  has  accumulated  and  renders  cultivation  possible.  Owing  to  this 
character  of  the  ground  the  cotton-plants  are  planted  very  scattered  and  irregularly, 
there  being  on  one  acre  often  not  more  than  100  plants.  However,  these  latter  are,  in 
this  most  favorable  climate,  of  very  vigorous  growth,  and  reach  sometimes  a  prodig- 
ious size  if  they  are  not  trimmed.  There  are  two  varieties  of  short,  staple  cotton  planted 
in  Long  Island:  "Anguilla"  and  "Georgia"  cotton,  the  latter,  as  the  name  indicates, 
imported  from  the  United  States ;  the  former  probably  imported  from  the  West  Indies. 
Georgia  cotton  is  perfectly  white,  Angnilla  a  little  yellowish ;  both  are  considered  as  of 
equal  value.  The  seeds  of  either  kind  are  black,  but  not  as  smooth  as  that  of  sea-island 
cotton.  This  latter  variety  was  introduced  in  the  Bahamas  in  1862,  but  as  it  has  to 
be  replanted  every  year  is  not  fit  for  cultivation.  Cotton  on  the  Bahamas  is  planted 
during  the  months  of  January,  February,  and  March  ;  it  blossoms  in  August,  "  blows" 
in  September,  and  the  crop  is  picked  in  January.  At  the  same  time  the  plant  "  fresh- 
ens" up,  and  there  is  a  second  crop  in  May.  The  plant  is  then  trimmed,  and  blows 
again  in  September;  and  so  on.  After  the  third  year  the  plant  is  considered  exhausted, 
and  the  field  replanted.  Each  plant  leaves,  therefore,  five  crops.  Cotton  is  cultivated 
on  Exuma  and  Long  Island  exclusively  by  negroes,  there  being  no  white  men  on  these 
islands  except  the  "  magistrate"  and  the  Episcopal  preacher.  The  cultivation  is  in  my 
opinion  carried  on  in  the  most  careless  way. 

As  to  the  insects  injurious  to  the  cotton-plant,  my  inquiries  and  investigation  con- 
cerning the  cotton- worm  gave  the  following  unexpected  result.  The  cotton-worm  was 
well  known  in  slavery  times  and  recently  up  to  1866.  It  was  injurious  every  year 
before  1834,  and  was  to  be  seen  the  whole  year  around,  but  less  numerous  after  the 
stormy  season,  which  is  in  September  and  October,  and  most  numerous  just  before  the 
beginning  of  the  gales. 

In  general  Aletia  was  not  considered  by  the  natives  as  a  very  serious  enemy  of  the 
cotton-plant,  as  the  damage  done  by  it  was  always  small  when  compared  with  the 
ravages  of  a  much  more  formidable  enemy,  of  which  I  shall  speak  later.  It  is  the 
unanimous  opinion  of  the  inhabitants  of  Long  Island  that  after  the  famous  hurricane 
of  October  1,  1866,  this  insect  has  never  been  observed  on  that  island  nor  Exuma.  In 
confirmation  of  this  opinion  I  must  remark  that  I  myself,  after  five  days'  most  scrupu- 
lous investigation,  failed  to  discover  the  slightest  trace  of  Aletia.  On  inquiry  I  was 
informed  that  before  the  fall  of  1866,  in  March  and  April,  the  worms  called  "  chenille  " 
by  the  natives  were  pretty  numerous  and  easily  found.  As  the  natives  were  able  to 
observe  this  insect  in  former  years,  they  would  have  seen  it  also  after  1866  if  it  had  not 
disappeared. 

With  this  conclusion,  and  after  my  failure  to  find  Aletia,  I  do  not  hesitate  a  moment 
to  declare  it  as  a  fact  that  at  the  present  time  there  is  no  excessive  multiplication  of 
Aletia  on  the  Bahamas,  and  an  emigration  of  the  iusect  from  those  islands  to  the  United 
States  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 

As  for  myself,  I  do  not  doubt  the  statement  of  the  natives  that  Aletia  has  become 
extinct  on  these  islands,  either  in  consequence  of  the  hurricane  of  1866  or  from  reasons 
unknown  to  me. 

The  most  formidable  enemy  of  the  cotton  culture  on  the  Bahamas  is  one  much  more 
injurious  to  that  plant  than  Aletia  has  ever  been  either  on  those  islands  or  in  the 
United  States,  an  enemy  which  makes  the  continuance  of  the  cotton  culture  on  tho 
Bahamas  very  questionable.  It  is  the  "  cotton-bug,"  a  heteropteron,  probably  a  Ly- 
gaeus,  which,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  has  been  found  also  in  the  United  States.  It  punc- 
tures the  green  bolls,  thus  preventing  them  from  opening;  the  bolls  wilt  and  finally 
dry  up,  the  half-formed  cotton  and  dried-up  seeds  giving  food  to  a  number  of  other 
insects ;  more  often  the  cotton-bug  crowds  in  the  half  or  not  quite  half  open  bolls 
sucking  the  seeds,  thus  preventing  the  cotton  from  blowing,  or  at  least  renders  the 
cotton  yellow  and  unfit  for  use. 

According  to  the  opinions  of  the  natives  the  eggs  of  the  cotton-bug  are  deposited 
in  tho  cracks  of  the  rock.  I  myself  found  a  number  of  egijs  on  the  leaf  of  a  plant 
growing  under  a  cotton-tree,  but  failed  to  raise  the  insect,  and  am  therefore  not  sure 
that  said  eggs  are  really  those  of  the  cotton-bug. 

The  iusect  is  less  numerous  after  the  stormy  season  and  most  numerous  before  the 
beginning  of  the  gales.  During  my  visit  April  1  the  cotton-bugs  were  said  to  be  not 
very  numerous,  but  it  appeared  to  me  that  they  occurred  in  astonishing  numbers,  for 
they  were  to  be  seen  on  every  cotton-plant. 

Early  in  the  morning  and  late  in  the  afternoon  these  insects  literally  cover  all  the 
bolls  except  the  very  young  ones.  On  and  in  a  single  boll  I  counted  54  specimens, 
larvae,  pupae,  or  perfect  insects.  It  is  evident  that  this  insect  does  not  like  to  expose 
itself  to  the  rays  of  the  midday  sun,  as  it  is  to  be  found  during  the  warm  hours  of  tho 


APPENDIX  I REPORTS  OF  OBSERVERS.         349 

day  on  or  under  the  leaves  of  the  lower  part  of  the  plant  under  the  dead  leaves  which 
lie  upon  the  ground  or  beneath  stones.  I  never  saw  this  insect  far  from  the  c^tton- 
fiekls,  but  in  or  near  the  fields  they  may  be  seen  on  different  plants  and  shrubs.  I 
have  been  informed  that  in  slavery  times  the  slaves  were  "  taxed  "  to  collect  by  hand 
every  day  a  quart  of  these  bugs.  At  the  present  time  their  habit  of  crowding  during 
the  hot  hours  of  the  day  under  the  dead  leaves  upon  the  ground  gives  the  natives  a 
•way  to  destroy  them  in  large  numbers.  Dry  leaves,  twigs,  &c.,  are  placed  in  suitable 
places  protected  from  the  sun  and  set  on  fire  at  noon  ;  or,  still  better,  a  few  cotton- 
seeds are  thrown  up  in  such  heaps  of  dry  debris  and  attract  vast  numbers  of  the  in- 
sects, which  are  very  fond  of  sucking  these  seeds.  However,  as  this  remedy  is  not 
applied  universally,  it  has  but  little  or  no  effect,  and  it  will  be  very  difficult,  in  my 
opinion,  to  find  any  effective  remedy  against  this  pest,  unless  it  can  be  attacked  in  the 
egg  state. 

The  damage  done  by  this  insect  is  enormous;  it  destroys  regularly  the  entire  sum- 
mer crop,  i.  e.,  that  picked  in  January,  and  destroys  half  or  more  of  the  second  crop. 
It  was  very  destructive  in  slavery  times,- but  decidedly  less  numerous  in  the  years  fol- 
lowing 1862  up  to  about  1868.  Since  that  year  the  insect  has  regularly  every  year 
caused  the  damage  stated  above ;  in  the  year  1879  even  the  May  crop  was  almost  en- 
tirely destroyed  by  the  combined  influence  of  a  great  drought  and  this  pest. 

The  number  of  other  insects  living  upon  or  found  on  the  cotton-plant  on  Long  Island 
is  quite  considerable,  and  have  been  collected  by  myself  with  great  care.  They  may 
be  divided  in  the  following  classes: 

First.  Insects  living  actually  upon  the  cotton-plant:  Aphis  sip.;  2Homopterous  insects 
covering  the  more  tender  twigs  and  even  the  trunks  of  the  older  trees  with  their  eggs ; 
Microlepidopteron,  mining  in  the  leaves  ;  Hypothenemus,  is  boring  in  the  tender  twigs ; 
a  large  Buprestid,  living  in  the  dead  stalks ;  Drapetes  sp.,  feeding  upon  the  bark  of 
the  twigs;  unknown  insects, of  which  the  eggs  were  found  in  clusters  of  three  to  fif- 
teen on  the  under  side  of  leaves,  and  of  which  I  raised  the  young  larvae. 

Second.  Insects  found  on  cotron  attracted  by  the  cotton  Aphis :  Numerous  ants  ;  sev- 
eral species  of  Coccinellidae ;  larva  of  Chrysopa  sp. 

Third.  Insec*s  living  in  the  bolls  injured  by  the  cotton-bug  ;  two  species  of  Lepi- 
doptera  (also  found  in  the  United  States),  and  several  Coleoptera. 

Fourth.  Insects  found  on  the  cotton-tree,  which  I  observed  live  elsewhere  also,  or 
which  do  not  appear  to  me  to  live  exclusively  upon  cotton ;  two  species  of  Lepidop- 
tera;  several  Herniptera  and  Coleoptera.  None  of  these  insects  do  any  serious  harm, 
with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  the  insect  designated  above  as  "  2Homopteron,"  which, 
by  fastening  its  egg«,  covered  with  a  white  flocculent  matter,  around  the  young  leaf- 
buds,  causes  them  to  wilt  and  to  die. 

A  full  list  of  the  species  of  the  insects  found  by  myself  on  the  cotton-plant  on  the 
Bahamas  can  only  be  given  when  the  specimens  are  properly  mounted.  A  large  part 
of  my  notes  have  not  been  incorporated  in  the  foregoing  report,  which  I  beg  to  con- 
sider only  as  a  preliminary  one,  written  in  a  very  hasty  manner.  The  conclusions 
which  can  be  drawn  from  my  observations,  especially  the  conclusions  as  to  the  hiber- 
nation of  Alftia  in  the  United  States,  will  bo  forwarded  to  the  department  in  due  time. 
I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  yours,  very  respectfully, 

E.  A.  SCHWARZ. 

SAVANNAH,  GA.,  April  13,  1879. 

C.  V.  RILEY, 

Entomologist,  Department  of  Agriculture. 


REMARKS  ON  THE  HIBERNATION  OF   ALETIA. 

The  principal  result  of  my  trip  to  the  Bahama  Islands  is  the  conclusion  that  an  im- 
migration of  Aldia  from  the  Bahamas  to  the  United  States  has  been  impossible,  at  least 
since  the  year  18615.  With  almost  equal  certainty  it  may  be  concluded  that  an  immi- 
gration of  the  insect  from  Porto  Rico  or  Hayti  or  any  other  island  of  the  West  Indies 
is  impossible,  because  such  an  immigration  would  doubtless  have  restocked  with  cotton- 
worms  the  Bahama  Islands  before  reaching  the  coast  of  Florida  or  Georgia. 

Now,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  Florida  and  on  Saint  Catharine's  Island  (the  only 
one  of  the  sea  islands  of  Georgia  where  at  the  present  time  cotton  is  planted  to  any 
extent)  the  cotton  insect  has  appeared  regularly  every  year  since  1866,  though  not  nu- 
m^rous  enough  to  do  any  serious  damage,  it  appears  very  probable  that  Aletia  is  indig- 
enous within  our  country. 

There  is  still  the  possibility  that  Aletia  could  immigrate  every  year  to  the  United 
Sta  es  from  Mexico  or  Yucatan  or  South  America.  To  this  I  have  to  remark  : 

First.  That  to  my  knowledge  nothing  definite  is  known  about  Aletia  and  its  habits 
in  the  countries  mentioned.  We  do  not  know  even  whether  the  insect  occurs  there  at 
the  present  time  or  not.  It  is,  however,  safe  to  say  that  as  cotton  is  raised  in  those 


350  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

countries  only  to  a  very  limited  extent,  and  not  in  continuous  belts,  the  insect  labors, 
therefore,  under  conditions  unfavorable  to  an  excessive  multiplication. 

Second.  Aletia  acquires  migratory  habits  alone  by  excessive  multiplication,  as  I  have 
had  ample  opportunity  to  observe  daring  last  spring  and  summer. 

Third.  Should  the  insect  in  the  countries  named  above  multiply  excessively,  and 
therefore  acquire  migratory  habits,  its  first  appearance  in  the  United  States  would  be 
very  sudden  and  in  large  numbers,  and  perhaps  confined  to  the  regions  nearest  the  coast. 
The  information  I  received  last  winter  from  numerous  planters,  which  was  fully  cor- 
roborated by  my  own  observation  during  last  spring,  proves  that  the  first  generation 
of  worms  is  everywhere  very  scarce  in  numbers,  and  that  the  insect  does  by  no  means 
appear  first  near  the  coast,  but  at  various  localities  within  the  more  southern  portion 
of  the  cotton-belt. 

In  view  of  the  facts  mentioned  above,  the  theory  of  the  annual  immigration  of  Aletia 
from  tropical  countries  appears  to  be  seriously  weakened,  and  only  supported  by  the 
undeniable  fact  that  nobody  ever  found  Aletia  hibernating  in  any  of  its  stages  in  the 
United  States.  On  this  latter  point  I  have  already  expressed  my  opinion  in  a  former 
letter  to  the  department,  and  will  only  repeat  here  that  the  failure  of  others  and  my- 
self to  find  Aletia  in  its  winter  quarters  is  no  proof  at  all  against  the  theory  of  the 
hibernation  of  this  insect  in  the  United  States. 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  I  would  like  to  mention  that,  at  various  places 
throughout  the  cotton- growing  States,  numerous  planters,  and  among  them  very  observ- 
ing and  intelligent  ones,  assert  that  they  have  seen  the  cotton-moth  flying  about  houses, 
&c.,  on  warm  evenings  in  winter  time  and  early  spring.  How  much  truth  there  is  in 
these  assertions  I  do  not  know,  but  the  fact  is  that  they  only  saw  the  iusoct  flying 
about,  and  never  actually  captured  an  Aletia,  and  still  less  sent  it  to  entomologists  for 
identification.  All  moths  either  attracted  by  light  or  by  sweets  ami  captured  by  my- 
self in  winter  time  in  the  Southern  States  proved  without  exception  to  be  other  species 
than  Aletia.  I  object,  therefore,  to  the  argument  just  mentioned  being  brought  forth 
at  the  present  time  in  favor  of  the  theory  of  hibernation  of  Aletia. 

What  I  have  said  above  on  the  hibernation  of  Aletia  refers  only  to  the  more  southern 
portion  of  the  cotton-belt  of  the  United  States,  as  everybody  who  has  traveled  through 
the  Southern  States  must  be  convinced  that  the  insect  never  hibernates  in  the  more 
northern  portion  of  the  cotton  district.  Its  appearance  there  is  exclusively  due  to 
immigration  of  the  insect  from  its  breeding-places  in  the  southern  portions  of  the 
cotton-belt. 

If  circumstances  are  favorable  to  its  development  the  insect  can  acquire  migratory 
habits  in  its  second  generation,  or,  at  any  rate,  very  early  in  the  season,  and  the 
result  would  be  a  more  or  less  destructive  appearance  of  cotton-woruis  throughout  the 
cotton-growing  States.  Usually,  however,  the  insect  is  kept,  in  check  by  its  natural 
enemies  and  by  climatic  influences  or  by  both,  or  the  vigorous  and  combined  efforts  of 
the  planters  in  poisoning  the  worms,  and  it  acquires  migratory  habits  only  late  in  the 
season,  say  in  the  month  of  September,  when  its  ravages  in  the  northern  portion  of  the 
cotton-belt  does  not  materially  injure  the  crop. 

It  is,  of  course,  impossible  for  me  to  circumscribe  accurately  the  northern  limits  of 
the  breeding-grounds  of  Aletia,  but  they  may  be  roughly  indicated  as  follows: 

In  Texas  the  breeding-ground  of  Aletia  includes  the  whole  extent  of  the  cotton  dis- 
trict south  of -the  Galveston,  Harrisburg,  and  San  Antonio  Railroad,  but  extending 
farther  northward  along  the  river  bottoms.  In  Louisiana  and  Mississippi  it  includes 
the  bottom-lands  of  the  Mississippi  River  and  its  tributaries,  but  1  am  unable  to  indi- 
cate the  northern  limits.  In  Alabama  a  portion  or  perhaps  the  whole  of  the  canebrake 
region.  Farther  east  it  includes  the  cotton  districts  of  Florida  and  perhaps  a  small 
portion  of  Southern  Georgia. 

Within  the  area  thus  indicated  the  cotton-worm  hibernates  every  year  and  appears  at 
various  localities,  wherever  it  has  succeeded  in  escaping  the  winter,  as  early  in  the 
season  as  the  cotton-plant  is  fit  to  eerve  as  food  for  the  young  larva.  It  is  hardly  neces- 
sary to  say  that  these  early  generations  of  cotton-worm  are  overlooked  by  farmers,  and 
it  is  indeed  a  difficult  task  to  find  the  first  generation  of  worms,  as  it  is  usually  con- 
fined to  small  spots  and  as  its  ravages  are  inconsiderable. 

All  efforts  to  keep  the  insect  in  check  ought  to  be  confined  to  this  southern  portion 
of  the  cotton-belt  in  order  to  prerent  an  excessive  multiplication  and  with  this  an 
early  immigration  of  the  insect  to  the  more  northern  portion  of  the  cotton-raising 
States. 

E.  A.  SCHWARZ. 

COLUMBUS,  TEX.,  September,  1879. 

J.  HENRY  COMSTOCK, 

Entomologist,  Department  of  Agriculture. 


APPENDIX  I — REPORTS  OF" OBSERVERS.         351 
REPORT  OF  A.  R.  GROTE,  OF  BUFFALO,  N.  Y. 

SIR  :  In  accordance  with  your  favor  of  July  18,  in  which  yon  directed  me  to  visit  the 
States  of  Georgia  and  Florida  for  the  purpose  of  making  observations  on  the  insects 
injurious  to  the  cotton-plant,  I  proceeded  to  Savannah,  and,  during  the  following  month 
of  August,  madeexaminations  of  cotton-fields  at  different  points  between  Savannah  and 
Atlanta.  Having  charged  me  especially  with  that  phase  of  the  cotton-worm  inquiry 
which  comes  under  the  head  of  migrations,  I  directed  my  chief  attention  to  making 
observations  and  collecting  information  on  the  appearance  and  movement  of  the  cotton- 
worm  (Aletia  argillaeea). 

It  was  first  my  object  to  ascertain  if  the  worm  could  be  found  at  the  time  of  my  visit 
at  any  of  the  points  visited  by  me.  A  careful  survey  of  the  plantation  of  Dr.  Lawton 
near  Savannah,  from  August  1  to  August  7,  and  other  cotton  patches  in  the  vicinity, 
convinced  me  that  the  worm  had  not  then  appeared.  The  statements  made  to  me  were 
to  the  effect  that  its  earliest  appearance  was  usually  to  be  looked  for  about  the  middle 
of  the  month. 

Henry  Gaston,  engaged  in  planting  cotton  for  nearly  twenty  years,  said  that  the  first 
brood  of  worms  usually  webs  up  about  the  middle  to  the  latter  part  of  August,  giving 
a  second  brood  in  September.  The  worm  was  first  noticed  in  the  stronger  cotton  on 
the  bottom-lands.  The  worm  was  never  found  by  him  on  anything  but  cotton,  and 
he  had  noticed  it  leaving  one  patch  of  cotton  and  going  to  another  when  leaf  failed 
and  there  was  nothing  for  the  worms  to  continue  feeding  upon.  He  had  used  Paris 
green,  dusted  in  a  dry  state  upon  the  leaves,  and  it  killed  the  worms.  Care  had  to  be 
used  by  him  to  avoid  the  poison  getting  into  his  eyes  or  on  sores  or  tender  places  of  the 
body.  He  had  observed  the  fly  before  the  appearance  of  the  worm,  but  had  never 
noticed  it  in  the  early  spring. 

This  testimony  is  given  as  a  sample  of  the  information  collected  from  various  individ- 
uals. While  August  seems  to  be  the  usual  time  for  the  appearance  of  the  worm  on  the 
mainland,  on  tho  coast  of  Georgia,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Savannah,  the  testimony  of 
Dr.  J.  S.  Lawton,  on  the  sea  islands  off  the  coast  of  South  Carolina  to  the  northward  of 
Savannah,  is  to  the  effect  that  the  worm  appears  sometimes  as  early  as  July  and  is  then 
usually  excessively  injurious  to  the  long-staple  cottons. 

In  Southwestern  Georgia  the  worm  is  noticed  as  early  as  the  last  week  in  June  in 
some  years,  and  the  main  damage  inflicted  in  the  State  seems  to  come  from  this  quar- 
ter. The  worm  occurs  there  every  year,  though  the  date  at  which  it  is  noticed  varies. 
The  question  whether  the  earliest  so-called  "  brood  "  is  the  first  appearance  of  the 
worm  in  any  quarter  has  been  raised  by  yourself,  and  is  one  to  which  I  hope  to  be  able 
to  pay  close  attention  in  the  spring. 

For  the  present  we  must  accept  the  testimony  that  the  worm  seems  to  advance  from 
Southwest  Georgia  over  the  western  and  occasionally  over  the  central  portions  of  the 
State.  It  seems  to  come  from  Decatur  to  Baker,  Calhoun,  Dougherty,  and  Lee  Conn- 
ties.  Aecording  to  present  testimony  its  appearance  is  not  simultaneous  over  this  sec- 
tion of  the  State,  the  southern  portions  being  first  visited. 

From  testimony  collected  by  myself  in  Athens,  on  the  occasion  of  the  meeting  of  the 
Agricultural  Society  of  Georgia,  the  following  counties  are  visited  by  the  cotton-worm 
every  year,  though  the  exact  time  is  not,  according  to  testimony,  the  same :  Cal- 
houn, Decatur,  Dougherty,  Lee,  Macon,  Schley,  Taylor.  Counties  in  which  the  worm 
is  not  noticed  every  year  are  Burke,  Clarke,  Fulton,  Green,  Hancock,  Jones,  Monroe, 
Putnam,  Richmond. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  central  portion  of  the  State  is  less  subject  to  the  devastation 
of  the  cotton- worm  than  the  southwestern  and  western.  Under  the  theory  of  its  grad- 
ual spreading  from  south  to  north  we  niav  suppose  a  seaboard  source  of  infection  and 
one  from  the  southwest  and  the  State  of  Alabama. 

Collections  of  other  insects  on  the  cotton-plants,  which  I  found  in  my  journey  from 
Savannah  to  Atlanta,  were  made  and  forwarded  to  you.  At  Atlanta  I  found  the  larva 
of  Citheronia  regalia  feeding  on  the  cotton-plant  at  the  end  of  August.  This  species 
occurs  singly,  and  although  of  large  size  never  does  much  damage.  There  is  but  one 
brood  in  the  year,  and  the  larva  feeds  besides  on  the  gum,  persimmon,  walnut,  and 
hickory. 

From  the  Hon.  Robert  Toombs  I  learned  that  there  was  an  emigration  of  French 
cotton-planters  in  Martinique  to  Southwest  Georgia  in  1801-1802  on  account  of  the 
ravages  of  the  cotton-worm  in  the  West  Indies.  Mr.  Toombs  sold  his  plantations  in 
Southwest  Georgia  ora  account  of  the  ravages  in  1835  committed  by  the  cotton-worm 
in  Early  and  Clay  Counties.  The  cotton- worm  has  been  shown  by  me  to  be  a  tropical 
insect  in  my  paper  before  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science, 
read  at  the  Hartford  meeting,  and  the  fact  must  be  conceded  that  prior  to  the  culti- 
vation of  cotton  in  the  United  States  it  could  have  made  no  foothold  in  our  territory. 

I  received  in  November,  1878,  fresh  instructions  from  you  to  proceed  to  Georgia  for 
the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  I  could  find  eggs  from  the  last  moths  on  any  por- 
tion of  the  plant  and  any  facts  bearing  on  the  hibernation  of  the  moth.  On  the  plan- 


352  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

tations  near  Savannah  I  fonnd  that  the  worm  was  first  noticed  the  current  year  on 
September  4.  I  found  a  large  number  of  chrysalides  yet  on  the  plant  on  November 
10  to  25.  The  nights  were  frosty  and  the  leaf  withered  and  scant.  In  places  shel- 
tered by  trees  the  leaf  was  still  green,  and  here  I  found  (November  16)  a  few  cater- 
pillars not  yet  spun  up.  A  large  number  of  the  chrysalides  were  empty ;  about  40 
per  cent,  contained  the  parasites,  the  most  numerous  of  which  were  pupae  of  Pimpla 
conquisitor.  There  were  also  a  number  of  Tachina  larvae  noticed.  Less  than  a  quarter 
of  the  chrysalides  contained  the  undeveloped  moth. 

I  carefully  searched  the  stems  without  finding  any  eggs  of  the  moth.  An  examina- 
tion of  the  woods,  logs,  and  brushwood  yielded  no  chrysalides  of  the  cotton-worm. 
From  the  appearance  of  the  chrysalides  on  the  plants  it  must  be  conceded  that  the  last 
worms  do  not  quit  the  plant  nor  prepare  themselves  for  winter  in  any  way.  In  my 
opinion  the  chrysalides  which  do  not  yield  the  moth  and  are  retarded  by  the  severity  of 
the  weather  cannot  conceal  themselves  in  any  way  in  the  ground,  and  must  probably 
perish  from  the  cold  or  in  the  process  of  removing  the  dead  plants  to  prepare  for  a 
fresh  crop  of  cotton. 

Under  your  instructions  I  visited  the  Georgia  sea  islands  during  the  end  of  Novem- 
ber and  beginning  of  December.  I  found  that  the  worm  had  appeared  this  year  in 
September,  as  on  the  mainland,  but  later  in  the  month.  It  had  also  not  spread,  and 
had  attacked  certain  corners  of  the  fields,  where  I  now  found  the  chrysalides.  None  of 
these  contained  undeveloped  moths ;  they  were  either  empty  or  ichneumouized.  There 
had  been  no  second  brood  of  the  worm  on  the  islands,  according  to  testimony  collected 
by  me,  and  which  was  borne  out  by  my  own  observations. 

I  returned  to  Washington  in  December,  reporting  to  yon  my  observations,  and  hav- 


ing previously  mailed  to  you  specimens  collected  by  me.  On  this  trip  I  found  the  case 
of  what  is  probably  a  large  Oiketicus.  The  presence  of  this  genus  in  the  United  States 
is  indicated  by  Abbott,  in  Harris's  Correspondence,  edited  by  Mr.  S.  H.  Scndder.  I 


had  previously  examined  the  Cuban  species  0.  Pocyi,  but  until  now  had  never  met  any 
species  in  our  American  collections  outside  of  the  West  Indies.  The  specimen  was 
fastened  to  the  main  stem,  near  the  top,  of  a  cotton-plant,  on  a  plantation  near  Savan- 
nah. It  was  duly  mailed  to  you,  and  if  it  is  reared  will  be  interesting  from  a  scien- 
tific point  of  view. 

As  the  result  of  my  late  observations  I  may  say  that  the  fact,  I  think  first  announced 
by  myself,  is  confirmed  that  the  "cotton- worm"  passes  the  winter,  when  it  survives 
at  all,  as  a  moth,  and  that  the  last  fall  worms  do  not  leave  the  plant  to  web  up.  The 
full  history  of  the  worm  in  Georgia  can  be  made  out  when  the  country  is  fully  explored 
in  the  spring,  and  before  the  first  appearance  of  the  worm  in  numbers.  It  will  then 
be  made  clear  where  the  first  large  numbers  of  the  worm  come  from ;  whether  they 
are  the  results  of  fresh  invasions  of  the  moth,  or  are  the  product  of  a  first  generation 
from  eggs  of  hibernating  individuals.  In  the  mean  time  my  present  and  former  obser- 
vations go  to  prove  that  the  successful  hibernation  of  the  moth  is  not  accomplished  in 
all  localities  of  the  cotton-growing  States,  and  that  there  is  a  general  dispersion  of  the 
insect  in  the  moth  stage  from  south  to  north. 

Under  your  intelligent  supervision  of  the  inquiry  and  with  the  facilities  which  you 
possess  from  different  sections  of  the  South,  I  have  no  doubt  that  this  important  matter 
will  receive  final  and  full  elucidation. 

My  thanks  are  due  to  Mr.  Y.  Rauers,  of  Saint  Catharine's  Island  ;  Dr.  W.  S.Lawton, 
of  Savannah ;  Messrs.  T.  G.  Hall,  of  Macon,  Ga. ;  J.  E.  Redwine,  Hull  County,  Georgia ; 
E.  C.  Grier,  Griswoldville,  Jones  County ;  Y.  Pinckney  Thomas,  Waynes  Bluff,  Burke 
County,  Georgia ;  State  Geologist  George  A.  Little,  of  Atlanta,  Ga. ;  and  others  who 
have  assisted  me  in  my  work. 
Yours,  respectfully, 

A.  R.  GROTE. 

BUFFALO,  N.  Y. 


REPORT  OF  E.  H.  ANDERSON,  M.  D.,  OF  KIRKWOOD,  MISS. 

SIR  :  I  herewith  have  the  honor  to  make  my  general  report,  summarizing  my  ob- 
servations upon  Aletia  during  the  past  season.  It  would  be  a  mere  repetition,  and 
therefore  a  work  of  supererogation,  to  enter  into  any  description  of  the  insect,  either 
as  moth  or  larva,  as  this  has  been  already  well  done  by  expert  entomological  observ- 
ers, and  I  shall  confine  my  remarks  to  a  few  of  its  features  more  intimately  concerned 
in  its  propagation. 

Owing  to  highly-favoring  atmospheric  conditions,  the  insect  was  to  be  fonnd  through- 
out this  cotton-belt,  but,  as  usual,  infested  and  ravaged  certain  portions  to  a  much 
greater  extent  than  others.  Its  history  and  mode  of  operation  in  my  immediate  local- 
ity would  furnish  a  synopsis  of  its  operations  everywhere,  as  all  the  laws  under  which 


APPENDIX  I REPORTS  OF  OBSERVERS.         353 

it  lives  and  moves  and  has  its  being  were  in  full  operation  here.  It  appeared  .13 
early  as  July  in  a  few  fields,  and,  passing  through  three  generations,  left  not  a  leal' 
behind.  In  others,  it  appeared  later,  doing  less  damage,  but  leaving  no  vegetation. 
In  others,  later  still,  doing  but  slight  damage,  but  eating  and  destroying  until  arrested 
in  its  course  by  frost.  In  other  cases  it  appeared  early,  doing  no  noticeable  damage. 
It  was  preceded  by  our  grass-worm,  which  I  have  only  observed  in  the  early  summer 
or  spring,  and  of  which  1  have  never  seen  two  broods  in  one  season,  and  which  never 
proves  damaging  to  cotton,  though  it  will  to  a  limited  extent  cut  it  down  when  young 
and  eat  the  leaves  of  older  cotton.  This  grass-worm  and  Aletia  are  often  confounded, 
and  some  of  our  most  intelligent  planters  insist  that  Aletia  is  the  progeny  of  the  grass- 
worm,  and  they  base  their  belief  upon  the  fact  that  where  you  find  the  grass-worm 
early  in  the  season,  in  from  twenty  to  thirty  days  you  are  sure  to  lind  Aletia.  They 
think  the  difference  in  appearance  is  owing  to  an  advance  in  the  season.  A  compari- 
son of  the  insects  and  their  different  modes  of  pupation  settles  this  question  conclu- 
sively. Aletia,  with  its  bright  stripes,  yellow  head  spotted  with  black,  its  false  ven- 
tral feet,  consequent  looping  gait,  with  each  of  its  sixteen  sections  having  sixteen 
black  spots  or  tubercles,  from  which  a  hair  or  bristle  projects,  and  its  general  business- 
•like  carriage,  once  known,  cannot  be  mistaken  for  any  other. 

The  first  cotton-worms  were  observed  here  last  season  about  the  20th  July,  in  a  field 
of  about  25  acres  and  in  the  lowest  spot,  the  first  generation  destroying  about  3  acres 
of  cotton.  There  were  none  to  be  found  there  in  any  other  field,  and  none  nearer  than 
30  miles  south,  near  Canton.  This  25-acre  field  was  isolated  and  surrounded  by  forest. 

Did  the  moth  come  by  migration  or  was  it  bred  there  f  June  and  July  had  been 
characterized  by  frequent  rains ;  but  from  the  first  appearance  of  the  worms  the 
showers  were  becoming  occasional,  and  nothing  indicated  the  arrival  of  the  miller  or 
moth.  From  the  first  to  the  last  of  August,  while  showers  were  occasional,  the  worm 
continued  to  appear  in  different  fields ;  in  the  older  fields  first,  in  the  newer  and 
fresher  later. 

MIGRATIONS. 

This  might  be  accounted  for  by  short  migrations  of  the  moth,  but  more  naturally 
from  its  being  indigenous.  That  the  worm  appears  in  different  latitudes,  earlier  south 
and  later  north,  as  thermal  temperature  increases,  there  is  no  doubt;  and  under  this 
law  of  development  it  reaches  its  ultimate  northern  limit  last.  Close  observations  of 
the  moth  and  worm  furnish  no  indications  of  a  migratory  tendency.  The  moth  se- 
cretes itself  by  day,  and  at  night  confines  its  flight  to  a  limited  area ;  and  instead  of 
spreading  or  depositing  its  egga  over  a  large  area,  seems  to  concentrate  them,  and  oc- 
cupies just  as  much  as  will  be  eaten  by  each  generation  and  no  more.  The  worm 
seems  averse  also  to  migrate  ;  and,  as  has  been  noticed  by  others  and  myself,  will  eat 
up  to  a  line  and  will  not  cross  it,  and,  it  has  been  asserted,  will  not  eat  other  cotton 
if  placed  upon  it.  Where  they  have  stripped  a  field  I  have  seen  them  wandering  in 
the  grass,  on  fence-rails,  and  the  sward  on  the  outside  of  a  field,  looking,  probably,  for 
food  or  to  pupate.  The  migratory  theory  is  doubtless  based  upon  the  supposition  that 
the  insect  does  not  hibernate  in  any  form  in  this  latitude,  and  even  two  degrees  south 
of  this.  Upon  this  point  observers  differ ;  and  it  is  not  only  an  interesting  question 
entomologically,  but  one  of  vital  interest  to  this  commission,  as  its  objects  cannot  be 
successfully  accomplished  until  we  arrive  at  something  like  certainty  as  to  the  history 
of  the  insect. 

For  twenty  years  past  I  have  been  a  casual  observer  of  the  cotton-worm,  and,  as  far 
as  my  memory  serves  me,  recollect  it  as  an  annual  visitor,  often  in  such  small  numbers 
as  to  attract  no  attention,  but  occasionally  to  have  proved  very  damaging.  My  atten- 
tion was  first  arrested  by  a  phenomenal  mode  of  generation,  of  which  I  could  get  no 
explanation  from  my  more  experienced  planting  friends,  I  therefore  took  the  subject 
into  mature  consideration.  In  this  case,  the  eggs  of  the  moth,  though  no  moth  had 
been  seen,  had  been  deposited  on  the  cotton  and  were  there  hatched,  the  larva  destroy- 
ing all  the  leaves  and  young  bolls  along  fifteen  or  twenty  furrows,  but  did  not  touch 
the  adjoining  rows  on  either  side.  This  was  in  July,  1858.  They  passed  into  chrysalids 
on  the  stalks  and  then  disappeared,  no  other  cotton  being  visited  that  season.  I  have 
frequently  since  seen  them  appear  in  the  same  mysterious  way,  and  have  verified  my 
predictions  as  to  their  appearance  at  a  particular  time  and  place. 

THE  EGG. 

Regarding,  as  I  do,  the  insect  as  indigenous  and  the  chief  function  of  the  moths  to 
be  reproduction,  the  eggs  would  be  speedily  laid,  after  copulation,  upon  the  cotton-leaf, 
awaiting  the  natural  process  of  development.  This,  under  favoring  atmospheric  con- 
ditions, proceeds  annually,  to  a  limited  extent,  under  solar  evaporation.  This  theory 
may  be  exemplified  by  a  topographical  feature,  which  has  been  strongly  emphasized 
by  some  observers,  and  offers  a  solution  of  what  might  otherwise  be  unaccountable. 
Parts  of  a  field  often  escape  and  seem  to  be  avoided  by  the  worm,  while  adjoining  cot- 
tou  may  be  totally  eaten  out.  This  is  notably  the  case  on  the  eastern  side  of  fields, 
but  may  occur  at  any  shaded  point.  I  noticed  a  field,  this  season,  where  the  worm  had 
2301 


354  EEPORT  UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

destroyed  9,11  the  foliage  in  the  field,  except  a  strip  along  the  eastern  fence  where  the 
cotton  was  tall  and  luxuriant.  The  fence  was  skirted  by  forest  from  60  to  80  feet  high, 
and  consequently  the  rays  of  the  sun  did  not  strike  the  cotton  until  about  ten  o'clock. 
I  found  a  few  worms  there  and  eggs  abundantly.  My  conjecture  was  that,  as  the  sun 
did  not  strike  the  cotton  until  the  morning  dew  had  all  evaporated,  the  true  condition 
for  hatching  by  solar  evaporation  was  absent  and  the  larger  proportion  of  the  eggs 
remained  unhatched.  The  explanation  would  be,  that  the  egg  being  albuminous  and 
hence  nitrogenous,  as  well  as  all  eggs  are,  and  being  coated  with  a  gelatinous  or  mu- 
cous outer  coat  as  well  as  a  denser  inner  coat,  the  egg  membrane  proper  would  be  sub- 
ject to  both  the  chemical  and  vital  laws  under  which  all  germination  occurs ;  that  is, 
heat  and  moisture  induces  in  all  nitrogenous  matter  fermentation  and  decomposition, 
and  this  increased  heat  hastens  the  vivification  of  the  germ  which  would  organize 
under  its  vital  law. 

Suppose,  however,  solar  evaporation  to  be  intensified  by  an  artificial  process,  would 
not  hatching  necessarily  proceed  more  rapidly  ?  In  the  nature  of  things  it  inevitably 
would,  and  as  far  as  eggs  came  within  its  intluence  they  would  be  speedily  hatched. 
The  process  referred  to  is  that  of  plowing  land  when  wet,  under  a  hot  sun.  The  effect 
is  to  destroy  capillarity  and  expose  the  up-turned  furrow  to  rapid  evaporation,  by  which 
means  the  volume  of  air  surrounding  the  cotton  would  be  loaded  with  vapor  and  the 
temperature  increased  10°  or  12°  F.  This  process  effects  in  a  short  time,  perhaps  a 
few  minutes,  what  ordinary  solar  evaporations  or  telluric  radiations  would  not  effect 
in  a  season.  You  likewise,  by  this  bad  tillage,  give  back  to  the  air  the  fatness  of  the 
earth,  for  you  thereby  extricate  the  valuable  gases  which  a  bounteous  Heaven  has 
sent,  and  it  really  seems  to  me  that  the  worm  is  a  just  retribution. 

I  have  repeatedly  brought  the  egg  of  A  letia  in  from  the  field  this  season  and  placed 
it  under  the  solar  microscope.  As  seen  by  the  naked  eye,  it  is  a  minute  green  globule, 
as  large  as  a  celery-seed  and  somewhat  greener  than  the  leaf  upon  which  it  is  found. 
[I  have  rarely  seen  more  than  four  eggs  upon  any  one  leaf,  sometimes  near  together, 
but  oftener  far  apart.  All  invariably  attached  to  the  under  part  of  the  leaf  by  a  gum- 
ming substance  secreted  by  the  mother  moth  in  incubation.]  The  egg  varies  from  a 
deep  green  to  an  almost  transparent  color,  according  to  age ;  and  those  gathered  late 
in  the  fall  are  darker  and  almost  black.  On  being  broken  they  were  found  to  contain 
a  translucent  fluid.  Under  the  microscope  it  exhibits  the  conical  shape  and  curved 
ridges,  radiating  from  apex  to  base,  so  well  described  by  others,  and  presents  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  granulated  diamond,  sparkling  from  innumerable  points.  Being  so  mi- 
nute I  can  say  nothing  of  its  internal  structure,  but,  from  its  bursting  under  pressure, 
knew  that  the  investing  membrane  is  indued  with  elastic  power  and  affords  to  the 
germ  requisite  protection ;  and  as  it  only  changes  color  and  shrivels  as  the  season  ad- 
vances, retaining  its  contents  clear,  I  am  disposed  to  think  it  may  survive  a  winter. 
I  am  now  testing  its  capability  for  hibernation  in  different  modes ;  have  some  on  leaver 
in  my  house,  some  under  ground,  others  in  boxes  under  earth,  and  others  suspended 
in  the  air  in  muslin  cages.  All  look  black  except  those  that  have  hatched.  As  cold 
could  only  affect  the  vitality  of  the  germ  by  its  intensity,  and  the  chemical  forces  that 
would  promote  vital  activity  are  dormant  under  its  influence,  I  conjecture  that  the 
egg  falling  to  the  ground  with  the  detritus  of  the  plant  and  covered  by  earth  would 
remain  quiescent  until  acted  upon  by  its  appropriate  stimulus,  heat  and  moisture,  aud 
this  would  not  be  sufficiently  potential  until  June  or  July  in  this  latitude. 

Professor  Riley,  in  his  admirable  report  upon  the  grasshopper  of  the  West,  showing 
a  degree  of  patient  and  thorough  investigation  rarely  equaled,  gives  a  minute  descrip- 
tion of  the  process  of  oviposition,  and  announces  clearly  the  physiological  law  under 
which  the  hatching  of  the  egg  must  occur,  and  in  his  experiments,  where  he  transferred 
the  eggs,  after  repeated  freezing  and  thawing,  to  moist  earth,  intelligently  consulted 
nature  and  artificially  produced  the  best  condition  for  hatching.  The  moist  vapor  cre- 
ated by  radiated  heat,  permeated,  perhaps,  by  gases,  was  the  most  propitious  menstruum. 

THE  CHRYSALIS. 

Many  of  the  chrysalids  brought  in  by  me  came  forth  perfect  moths.  From  the  shell, 
in  other  cases,  issued  the  ichneumon  fly ;  in  some  cases  the  sole  occupant,  in  others  the 
co-tenant  of  a  dead  moth  partly  consumed.  I  brought  them  in  from  the  field  as  late 
as  the  16th  of  November,  full  of  vitality.  To-day,  January  7,  1879, 1  examined  several 
taken  from  boxes  of  earth,  glass  jars,  and  gauze  cages,  all  placed  in  my  piazza,  in  the 
onter  air,  subjected  to  all  the  changes  of  the  season,  with  the  thermometer  for  the  last 
twenty-one  days  at  or  below  freezing,  and  once  or  twice  as  low  as  28°  below  freezing, 
and  on  warming  them  they  showed  animation,  and  their  movements  became  very  sen- 
sible. I  have  no  doubt  about  carrying  them  through  the  winter  successfully.  Many 
of  our  most  observant  planters  affirm  that  they  plow  them  up  every  spring,  and  find 
them  alive.  Many  of  them  perish,  but  enough  survive  to  perpetuate  the  species.  The 
earth  affords  protection  by  concealing  and  by  warmth — in  the  one  case  protecting 
against  enemies,  such  as  hogs,  birds,  &c.,  and  in  the  other  against  inclemency  of  sea- 
son. Could  planters  be  induced  to  harrow  their  lands  in  winter,  thereby  exposing 
them,  a  great  majority  would  be  destroyed. 


APPENDIX  I REPORTS  OF  OBSERVERS.         355 

THE  MOTH. 

The  moths  that  issue  from  the  surviving  chrysalids  are  doubtless  the  progenitors  of 
our  first  brood  of  larvae,  reproducing  slowly  until  favored  by  propitious  circumstances. 
Being  of  the  owlet  family,  and  flying  only  at  dusk  and  at  night,  the  study  of  its  habits 
is  rendered  very  difficult.  From  the  chrysalids  I  obtained  a  number  which  I  kept  in 
confinement.  They  were  supplied  with  sweets,  and  ate  voraciously ;  indeed,  it  was 
interesting  to  see  with  what  adroitness  they  projected  their  suction-tubes  and  ma- 
neuvered its  patulous  end  in  the  molasses  as  it  trickled  down  the  jar.  They  laid  their 
eggs  abundantly  on  the  sides  of  the  jar  and  on  the  muslin  covering  of  the  top,  but 
none  survived  the  twenty-second  day.  They  commenced  dying  on  the  fifteenth  day, 
and  by  the  twenty-second  all  were  dead.  This  was  in  September.  In  October  and 
November  they  did  not  live  so  long. 

As  we  have  good  reason  to  believe  that  each  generation  proceeds  from  the  moth  of 
the  immediately  preceding  generation,  and  from  experiment  and  observation  I  am 
forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  moth  does  not  survive  its  generation,  I  bred  them, 
and  they  were  in  cotton-fields  all  around  me ;  but  since  the  1st  of  December,  though 
diligently  searching,  I  have  been  unable  to  find  a  living  moth.  Throughout  the  season 
I  have  been  trying  to  find  out  what  it  feeds  upon,  knowing  its  fondness  for  sweets  in 
confinement,  but  without  success. 

Learning  from  Professor  Riley  of  his  discovery  that  the  moth  visited  the  plant  to 
feed  upon  a  sweet  which  exudes  from  a  notable  gland  on  the  middle  rib  of  the  cotton 
leaf,  I  watched  often,  hoping  to  detect  them  in  the  act  of  sucking,  but  without  suc- 
cess. The  establishment  of  this  fact  and  the  secretion  of  this  sweet  at  a  certain  stage 
of  maturity  of  the  plant,  and  the  further  fact  that  this  secretion  is  more  active  at 
night,  as  vegetable  physiology  would  induce  us  to  suppose,  would  throw  a  flood  of  light 
upon  the  history  and  habits  of  the  insect.  As  an  instance  of  the  effect  of  light  and  its 
fondness  for  sweets,  I  will  mention  what  a  neighbor  told  me,  and  for  which,  to  a  great 
extent,  I  had  ocular  demonstration.  He  was  engaged  in  boiling  sirup  from  the  first  of 
September  to  the  last  of  Uctober.  His  yard,  where  his  evaporating-pan  was,  opened 
upon  a  field  of  GO  or  80  acres  of  cotton.  He  each  morning  found  his  pan  covered  with 
moths,  and  from  first  to  last  thought  he  had  emptied  out  one  bushel  of  moths, 
n-iy  the  effect  of  1" 


had  not  used  them  had  been  badly  damaged.  I  experimented  with  poisoned  sweets, 
using  salicylic  acid  and  molasses  and  other  poisons  and  sweets,  and  though  fatal  to 
moths  it  was  so,  likewise,  to  birds  and  innocuous  insects.  Humanity  here  enters  a  plea 
that  should  not  be  ignored  by  avarice.  Lights  and  simple  sweets  would  destroy  num- 
bers without  injury  to  others.  For  the  worm  or  larva  some  arsenical  preparation,  and 
as  far  as  my  knowlege  goes  that  of  Preston  and  Robira,  called  the  "  Texas  Cotton- 
Worm  Destroyer,"  is  the  best  before  the  public.  This  is  used  by  pumping  it  on  the 
cotton.  If  a  cheap  and  effective  machine  could  be  invented  for  its  thorough  applica- 
tion the  worm  might  be  exterminated,  but  the  trouble  and  expense  and  the  prejudice 
against  the  use  of  poisons  would  preclude  general  use. 

EXPERIMENTS. 

My  experiments  during  the  last  season  were  entirely  of  an  agricultural  character 
and  were  made  with  a  view  to  test  my  own  theory.  They  were  not  initial,  for  I  had 
practiced  them  during  the  last  thirteen  years,  and  could  anticipate  the  result  from 
former  experience. 

I  selected  various  fields,  some  undulating,  some  bottom  land,  and  others  hillside. 
In  some  cases  sandy,  in  others  loamy,  and  in  others  clayey.  In  all  cases  the  work  was 
done  where  there  was  no  appearance  of  moth  or  worm.  The  work  was  sometimes  done 
with  the  bar-plow  and  sometimes  with  the  solid  sweep. 

Case  1.— Solid  sweep  used  July  25,  second  day  after  rain  ;  condition  of  land  tillable, 
except  in  one  low  spot,  the  former  bed  of  a  small  pond,  which  was  then  wet  enough 
to  clog  the  sweep.  Worm  appeared  in  this  spot  in  ten  days  after  plowing. 

Case  2. — Bar-plow  used ;  valley  land,  sandy  and  loamy.  Ground  wet,  and  so  wet 
that  the  furrow  rolled  over  without  breaking.  This  was  on  the  26th  July.  Grass- 
worm  appeared  there  in  ten  days. 

Case  '3. — Undulating  land,  loamy  and  fresh.  Bar-plow  used  1st  of  August.  Soil  too 
wet  to  break  before  the  plow.  Worm  appeared  in  ten  or  twelve  days. 

Case  4. — Land  rich  vegetable  mold  and  sand,  with  some  clay ;  partly  upland  and 
bottom.  Edge  of  upland  plowed  10th  of  August  while  wet.  Bottom  land  too  wet 
and  not  plowed.  In  twelve  days  worms  appeared  on  the  plowed  land  ;  none  on  the 
unplowed. 

Case  5. — Rolling  land,  sandy  and  loamy.  Had  plowing  done  on  the  12th  of  August 
in  the  bottom.  Land  wet,  clodding  before  the  plow;  plowed  part  of  the  field.  In  ten 
days  worm  made  its  appearance  as  far  as  plowing  extended  and  no  farther. 


356  EEPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

While  conducting  these  experiments  I  had  plowing  also  done  where  the  land  was 
in  good  tilth  and  pulverized  before  the  plow,  and  no  worm  appeared,  though  visiting 
these  fields  three  or  four  weeks  later,  I  found  a  second  brood  of  worms,  the  progeny 
of  the  first.  Now,  in  all  of  these  cases,  had  the  plowing  been  deferred  until  the  soil 
had  become  dry  enough  to  pulverize,  the  speedy  generation  of  the  worm  would  not 
have  occurred.  I  had  one  field  of  my  own  cultivated  with  a  due  observance  of  the 
principle  here  announced,  and  though  the  worms  visited  it  they  did  it  no  damage,  and 
this  was  noticeable  in  other  fields  in  my  neighborhood,  cultivated  upon  the  same 
principle. 

I  have  endeavored,  in  the  foregoing  report,  to  introduce  and  elucidate  all  the  points 
involved  in  my  theory,  and  have  recapitulated  in  order  to  familiarize  and  impress 
them  upon  the  minds  of  planters,  as  they  are  to  be  the  chief  recipients  of  any  benefit 
that  may  arise  from  them,  and  through  whose  instrumentality  they  are  to  bo  tested. 
Of  them  I  ask  a  careful  study  of  the  plan  proposed,  and  an  impartial  verdict  of  its 
efficacy. 

From  my  observation  this  season,  aided  by  previous  knowledge  of  the  subject,  I  offer 
the  following  postulates : 

1.  That  the  insect  Aletia  is  indigenous. 

2.  That  it  does  not  hibernate  as  moth. 

3.  That  it  does  hibernate  as  chrysalis  or  pupa. 

4.  That  the  egg  is  probably  capable  of  hibernation. 

5.  That  solar  evaporation  is  the  normal  mode  of  hatching,  and  tha.t  this  occurs  an- 
nually. 

6.  That  a  favorable  meteorological  condition,  of  uncertain  periodical  recurrence, 
increases  largely  the  number  hatched. 

7.  That  plowing  wet  land  under  a  hot  sun  produces  an  artificial  heat  and  is  the  most 
prolific  source  of  speedy  generation. 

8.  And  finally,  as  a  corollary  deduced  from  the  above,  that,  by  the  intelligent  appli- 
cation of  the  principle  indicated  to  the  culture  of  cotton,  we  may  more  effectually 
arrest  the  ravages  of  the  cotton-worm  than  by  any  plan  yet  suggested. 


EEPOET  OF  JUDGE  WM.  J.  JONES,  OF  VIKGINIA  POINT,  TEXAS. 

I  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  report  of  my  observations  upon  the  origin  and 
best  means  of  destroying  the  cotton  army  worm. 

The  circulars  and  blanks  from  your  department  designed  for  distribution  among 
the  most  intelligent  planters,  mailed  to  my  address  early  in  August,  did  not  reach  me 
till  the  24th  of  October,  being  of  that  class  of  mail  matter  interdicted  by  our  local 
quarantine  regulations,  and  were  not  permitted  to  cross  the  borders  of  the  State  until 
the  time  mentioned.  This  detention  prevents  me  from  presenting  any  facts  or  ex- 
pression of  opinion  from  those  for  whom  the  questions  formulated  were  designed. 
Owing  to  this  delay  I  decided  in  the  latter  part  of  August  to  visit  in  person  some  of 
the  planters  near  the  several  lines  of  railway,  and  to  open  some  communication  with 
•others  farther  removed,  submitting  such  questions  as  could  be  embodied  in  letter  form, 
asking  for  such  information  as  they  could  furnish  on  point  in  question. 

To  these  letters  some  brief  answers  have  been  returned,  but  disclosing  no  facts  differ- 
ing from  those  already  well  known  concerning  this  destructive  insect. 

The  present  year  has  been  chiefly  noticeable  from  the  fact  that  a  large  portion  of 
the  State  heretofore  afflicted  with  its  visitations  has  been  entirely  exempted  from  its 
presence. 

Under  instructions  from  Professor  Riley,  of  the  Division  of  Entomology,  I  made  very 
strenuous  efforts  to  procure  specimens  of  Aletia  and  transmitted  them  to  him,  all  of 
which  were  safely  delivered.  In  answer  I  learn  that  ho  found  among  them  some  chry- 
salides differing  from  Aletia  argillacea,  the  moth  of  which  appears  to  belong  to  another 
genus.  This  species,  he  says,  has  not  been  received  from  any  of  the  other  cotton 
States,  and  seems  to  be  confined  to  this  section  of  the  cotton-belt. 

The  cotton  planters  generally  agree  to  the  hibernation  of  the  chrysalides  of  this  in- 
sect. I  may  say  with  all  confidence  that  the  views  of  those  who  differ  from  the  well- 
accepted  theory  of  the  worms  penetrating  the  ground  where  they  fall  from  the  cotton- 
plant,  result  from  their  failure  to  scrutinize  their  movements  as  closely  as  others ;  and 
it  is  to  this  fact  that  a  different  hypothesis  exists ;  but  nearly  every  planter  is  well 
satisfied  of  the  local  development  of  the  moth. 

Such  is  my  own  unqualified  conviction  from  the  experience  and  close  observation  oi 
thirty-five  years  as  a  planter.  The  few  who  have  suggested  the  theory  that  the  egg 
is  deposited  in  the  stalk  of  the  cotton-plant,  or  that  the  matured  insect  finds  protection 
in  sheltered  spots  in  our  midst,  are  few  in  number.  The  natural  formation  of  the  moth 
must  necessarily  forbid  the  idea  that  its  embryo  could  be  lodged  in  any  hard  or  porous 


APPENDIX  I REPORTS  OF  OBSERVERS.         357 

substance.  The  ovipositor  cannot  penetrate  any  solid  substance,  and  if  made  to  ad- 
here to  the  bark  or  outer  surface  the  eggs  would  perish  from  exposure  to  the  weather. 

Every  practical  planter  who  has  watched  closely  the  cotton  army  worm  knows  that 
the  egg  is  invariably  deposited  by  the  mother  moth  on  the  cotton  leaf,  mostly  on  the 
under  or  shady  side.  This  egg  is  very  small,  of  a  pale  green  color,  oblong  in  shape, 
and  is  attached  by  a  very  delicate  web,  which  holds  it  firmly  to  its  place. 

The  larva  is  hatched  from  this  egg  in  from  three  to  five  days,  being  somewhat  in- 
fluenced by  the  conditions  of  the  weather.  If  too  wet  or  very  dry  the  eggs  often  perish 
outright.  At  the  first  stage  of  life  the  larva  are  scarcely  visible  to  the  naked  eye, 
and  are  only  known  to  be  at  work  by  the  rank  smell  of  decaying  vegetation,  the  odor 
from  which  can  never  be  mistaken.  In  from  nine  to  eleven  days  the  full-grown  worm 
weaves  a  delicate  web  about  itself,  and  when  fully  enveloped  or  protected  by  its  own 
plexus  descends  an  attenuated  thread  to  the  ground,  where  it  makes  its  own  hiding 
place  and  in  time  transforms  into  the  inoth.  This  process  is  repeated  till  three  genera- 
tions have  appeared,  consuming  every  cotton  leaf  and  leaving  the  stalk  as  bare  and 
sere  as  though  withered  by  the  nipping  frosts. 

Great  numbers  of  these  chrysalides  are  plowed  up  every  planting  season,  when  they 
perish  from  exposure  on  the  surface  of  the  ground  or  are  consumed  by  the  feathered 
tribes  that  follow  in  the  wake  of  the  plow. 

I  have  watched  the  flight  of  the  moths,  when  they  have  unearthed  themselves,  have 
followed  them  for  long  distances,  and  have  always  found  them  extremely  clumsy  on  the 
wing,  alighting  in  the  grass,  weeds  or  cotton  every  fifteen  or  twenty  steps,  and  I  am 
convinced  that  they  are  incapable  of  long  or  extended  flight.  They  cannot,  therefore, 
come  every  season  from  another  or  distant  climate.  They  have  found  here  a  congenial 
sphere  and  a  limitless  supply  of  food. 

With  all  these  established  facts,  both  science  and  observation  have  yet  failed  to  ex- 
plain why  the  moth  disappears  for  years,  then  reappears  in  full  force  and  undiuiinshed 
numbers  upon  the  field  of  its  operations. 

My  own  recollection  is  distinct,  and  is  confirmed  by  all  the  older  planters,  that  in 
this  State  for  a  period  of  ten  years  (from  1853  to  1863),  the  cotton  army  worm  disap- 
peared almost  entirely  from  our  fields.  From  1864  to  1874  it  appeared  every  year  in 
great  numbers  south  of  the  32d  parallel. 

In  1875  it  was  found  only  in  small  numbers,  and  in  detached  localities,  inflicting 
slight  damage.  In  1876  and  1877  it  covered  the  land  in  the  midst  of  a  prolonged  drought, 
while  the  leaves  were  crisp,  devastating  the  crops  where  not  checked  by  the  use  of 
some  poisonous  compound. 

This  leads  me  to  note  some  suggestions  upon  the  use  of  poisons  and  the  proper  mode 
of  applying  the  same,  based  upon  the  correctness  of  the  theory  that  the  moth  is  now 
naturalized  in  the  cotton  region,  as  through  these  agencies  this  pest  may  be  in  time 
annihilated  and  the  planting  interest  saved  an  annual  loss  of  thirty  to  forty  millions 
of  dollars.  But  this  can  only  be  accomplished  by  the  combined  effort  of  skill,  labor, 

From  experiments  which  I  have  made  of  every  destructive  agent,  I  have  found  noth- 
ing so  cheap  or  more  effectual,  and  with  all  so  little  likely  to  effect  injuriously  the  cot- 
ton-plant or  the  distributor  of  the  poison,  as  a  mixture  of  the  arseniate  of  soda  and 
water  in  certain  given  proportions. 

This  mixture  is  now  prepared  at  the  Soda  Chemical  Works  under  a  patent  issued  to 
John  D.  Braman,  in  May,  1874.  This  preparation  has  been  extensively  used,  and,  where 
printed  instructions  were  strictly  followed,  has  never  failed  to  kill  the  worm  in  brief 
time  without  any  sensible  injury  to  the  plant  or  its  fruit,  and  in  no  wise  affecting 
those  who  applied  it,  as  has  often  been  the  complaint  against  Paris  green.  The  pres- 
ent cost  does  not  exceed  25  cents  per  acre,  while  the  green,  if  genuine,  will  reach  near 
$2  per  acre. 

Considering  the  manifest  advantages  and  the  immense  saving  in  the  crops  it  is  cer- 
tainly the  duty  of  legislative  powers  (either  Congress  or  the  several  State  legislatures 
of  the  cotton-growing  States)  to  devise  some  measure  which  will  place  both  the  poison- 
ous compound  and  some  efficient  agent  for  its  distribution  upon  the  cotton  within  the 
reach  of  every  laborer  engaged  in  its  cultivation.  Such  a  measure  cannot  fail  in  due 
time  to  eradicate  this  ravenous  insect. 

There  are  many  well-known  devices  for  the  extinction  of  the  moth,  the  prolific 
mother  of  the  cotton  army  worm,  all  of  which,  upon  a  limited  scale,  have  proved  more 
or  less  successful,  but  equally  requiring  capital  to  make  a  larger  scope  of  experiment 
by  the  use  of  torches  or  lighted  lamps  placed  in  the  cotton-fields,  at  suitable  distances, 
with  poisonous  liquids  to  attract  the  moth.  This  view  of  the  question  seems  to  have 
attracted  the  special  notice  and  observation  of  Professor  Riley,  under  whose  instruc- 
tions I  have  just  concluded  some  experiments,  which  have  been  fully  reported  to  him 
and  are  well  worthy  of  farther  trial  at  the  proper  season  next  year.  I  was  well  satisfied 
from  the  results  of  my  experiments  that  a  large  portion  of  the  mother  moths  may  be 


358  REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 


All  theories  discussed  in  this  report  are  valueless  except  as  suggesting  methods  to 
ie  practical  planter  of  checking  the  ravages  of  the  cotton  army  worm. 
All  of  which  are  most  respectfully  submitted  by 


WILLIAM  J.  JONES. 
VIRGINIA  POINT,  TEX., 

November  8,  1878. 
Hon.  WILLIAM  G.  LE  Due, 

Commissioner  of  Agriculture. 


REPORT  OF  PROF.  J.  E.  WILLET,  OF  MACON,  GA. 

THE  COTTON-WORM. 
PAST  HISTORY. 

1, 1  a,  and  1  6. 

Mr.  William  Jones,  Athens,  Ga.,  now  advanced  in  years,  planted  cotton  in  Liberty 
County,  Georgia,  from  1825  to  1865,  and  kept  notes  on  the  cotton-worm.  He  writes : 
"  Cotton  was  introduced  into  Georgia,  as  a  crop,  between  1790  and  1800."  Correspond- 
ents in  the  older  eastern  counties  give  1800  to  1810  as  the  date  of  the  introduction  of 
cotton  into  their  counties. 

Mr.  William  Jones  says :  "  The  cotton- worm  first  made  its  appearance  (in  Liberty 
County)  in  1804,  and  during  the  month  of  September  the  crops  were  half  eaten  up, 
when  a  hurricane  swept  over  the  country  and  destroyed  the  worms." 

MrU.  C.  Plant,  of  Macon,  Ga.,  and  Dr.  E.  L.  McTyre,  of  Thomasville,  Ga.,  think 
they  are  transported  from  one  country  to  .another  in  cotton-seed.  Mr.  Plant  married  in 
Glynn  County,  Georgia,  and  has  been  familiar  for  years  past  with  the  best  planters  on 
the  islands  and  on  the  Atlantic  coast  of  Georgia.  Mr.  Plantstates  that  the  father  of  Hon. 
James  Hamilton  Cowper,  of  Saint  Simon's  Island,  and  Mr.  Armstrong  brought  the  first 
cotton-seed  to  Glynn  County  from  the  Bahamas,  and  that  the  cotton- worm  was  first 
observed  after  the  second  importation  of  seed,  some  seven  years  subsequent  to  the  first  in- 
troduction. Mr.  Plant  further  states  that  he  has  seen  in  an  English  paper  that  the 
cotton-worm  first  appeared  in  Egypt  some  years  since,  and  just  after  an  importation  of 
American  cotton-seed. 

Dr.  E.  L.  MoTyre,  of  Thomasville,  Ga.,  writes:  "I  settled  in  the  province  of  San 
Paulo,  Brazil,  in  the  year  18(56,  and  remained  there  eight  and  a  half  years.  The  culti- 
vation of  cotton  was  of  recent  date  then,  and  they  were  planting  their  fourth  crop 
when  I  arrived.  Prior  to  the  year  1863  there  had  been  some  cotton  planted  in  the 
country,  perhaps  of  an  indigenous  variety,  but  no  one  had  ever  observed  a  cottpn- 
wornj,  and  I  believe  they  had  never  existed  there.  In  1862  the  price  of  cotton  offering 
great  inducements  to  Brazilian  farmers,  they  sought  to  procure  seed,  but  none  could  be 
had,  and  I  was  informed  the  seed  then  being  used  was  brought  from  New  Orleans. 
The  first  year  no  caterpillar  was  seen,  but  after  the  second  they  commenced  to  eat  the 
leaves,  and  had  increased  to  such  an  extent  that  when  I  moved  from  there  the  culti- 
vation of  cotton  was  nearly  abandoned." 

The  statements  of  Mr.  Plant  and  of  Dr.  McTyre  are  interesting,  and  are  worthy  of 
further  investigation.  Our  consular  agents  in  Egypt  and  Brazil  can  inquire  into  the 
introduction  of  the  cotton- worm  into  those  countries,  and  can  procure  specimens  show- 
ing whether  the  worm  is  Aletia,  argillacea  or  an  allied  native  species. 


/.—Destruc- 
tive months. 


a.—  Worm 
first  seen. 


1.—  Cotton 
first  grown. 


APPENDIX  I REPORTS  OF  OBSERVERS. 

t     a  a     a     a     &    'S        <o     <s    « £.     #  o     *  i>     A 


359 


i 


: 

i  1 


ss  s  a 

33 
10       S3 


I  II  J  I  I  j 

i  ii  §  i  i  1 

-a  fcfc  ^  ft  ft  g1 

O  O  4>  3  ©         0>  ^ 

CO  O2O2  1-5  O2      CC  <1 


S3 
S    § 


irt'co' 

S- 


O        O        LO 

I  I  i 


s 


1     1 


5:  .V*.  ft*'-.*.  &d 


3  -a   s^  -s  i 
^  ^  &£  %  & 


uly  and  Aug.; 
ormerly  Aug. 
nd  Sept. 


Is  ss  I 


1 

M     § 


I    i  =f  l 

1 1  i  H 

i  i  i  S- 1 


iflJi  I  i 

<o  p,  S  "-  -g  bC 


"S_^.P^co    ^fl^S 


l 


360  REPORT   UPON-COTTON   INSECTS. 

2,  2a,  Z>,  c,  d,  e,  f, 

Most  correspondents  agree  that  warm,  wet  summers  favor  the  multiplication  of  the 
worm ;  some  specify  that  in  hot,  dry  weather  the  young  larvae  die  soon  after  hatching. 
As  to  the  effect  of  winters,  several  correspondents  think  that  mild  winters  favor  the 
worms.  Major  Gamble,  of  Tallahassee,  Fla.,  who  has  planted  cotton  in  Middle  and 
Southern  Florida  from  1827  to  the  present  time,  says,  "  showery  weather  in  June  and 
July  after  a  mild  winter  "  is  favorable  to  the  insect,  and  that  "  cold  weather  is  injuri- 
ous in  proportion  to  its  rigor."  Per  contra,  Mr.  Jones,  who  planted  in  Liberty  County, 
Georgia,  from  1825  to  1865,  writes :  "  The  years  preceding  the  most  destructive  appear- 
ance of  the  worm  were  characterized  by  warm  summers  and  severe  winters."  On  2a 
he  says :  "  I  have  seen  the  worm  in  both  wet  and  dry  seasons,  and  the  only  difference 
noted  was  that  in  wet  seasons  the  growth  of  the  cotton  was  more  luxuriant,  and  the 
worms  had  more  to  feed  on." 

3. 

Losses  are  stated  very  differently,  as  seen  from  the  table.  They  are  doubtless  differ- 
ent in  different  sections,  being  greater  where  the  worms  come  oftener  and  in  greater 
force.  Twenty-five  per  cent,  for  destructive  years  is  probably  a  fair  mean. 

4. 

Capt.  L.  S.  McSwain  commenced  careful  meteorological  observations  in  Thomasville, 
Ga.,  in  April  last,  and  gave  me  a  record  of  winds,  as  follows  :  April,  S.  E. ;  May,  S.  E. ; 
June,  S.  W.,  and  July,  S.  The  United  States  Signal  Office  has  regular  stations  at  Sa- 
vannah and  Augusta,  Ga.,  and  Prof.  F.  J.  M.  Daly,  of  Pio  Nono  College,  Macon,  Ga., 
reports  also  to  the  same  office.  These  reports  will  give  the  department  full  informa- 
tion on  the  winds. 

Correspondents  agree  almost  unanimously  that  the  worms  do  not  eat  on  any  partic- 
ular side  of  the  field ;  if  at  the  sides,  always  with  reference  to  the  condition  of  the  crop. 
Most  commonly  they  appear  in  the  body  of  the  field,  in  low,  rich  places,  or  in  luxuriant 
cotton  at  any  point.  My  own  observation  this  year  corresponds  with  this  statement. 

The  general  testimony  of  correspondents  is  that  the  worm  feeds  only  on  cotton. 
One  says  he  has  known  them  to  eat  corn-blades  and  crab-grass  ;  another  told  me  they 
attacked  his  sugar-cane.  Per  contra,  I  confined  them  twenty-four  hours  on  the  leaves 
of  sugar-cane  and  of  okra,  but  they  disturbed  neither.  Mr.  Jones  has  likewise  confined 
them  on  various  species  of  hibiscus,  allied  to  cotton,  but  they  ate  none  of  them. 

5,  a,  &,  c,  d,  e,f,g. 

Several  report  seeing  moths  in  February,  but  there  is  no  certainty  that  they  were 
the  cotton-moth.  Major  Gamble,  Leon  County,  Florida,  reports  seeing  moths  in  the 
cotton-field  the  latter  part  of  May.  Mr.  William  Jones  reports  from  his  notes,  first 
worms  in  Liberty  County,  Georgia,  as  follows :  "  The  worms  first  made  their  appear- 
ance in  September,  1804,  then  not  again  until  late  in  September,  1825;  then  September 
5, 1840 ;  September  19,  1843 ;  August  18,  1846 ;  August  26,  increasing  largely ;  Septem- 
ber 14,  fields  almost  stripped  ;  by  the  19th  the  fields  were  completely  stripped.  Au- 
gust 20,  1847  ;  August  18,  1852,  these  two  years  no  harm  done.  I  stopped  planting  in 
1805 ;  I  have  kept  no  notes  since."  Major  Gamble  gives  from  his  notes,  first  worms  in 
Leon  County,  Florida,  1869,  May,  12;  1872,  June  29;  1873,  May  24  ;  1874,  July  2;  1875, 
June  24  ;  1877,  June  19;  1878,  June  15.  He  also  says:  "Previous  to  the  introduction  of 
new  improved  seeds  they  were  observed  about  the  middle  of  August.  Referring  to 
IMI  old  journal  which  I  have  by  mo,  and  kept  by  me,  I  discovered  a  few  August  11, 
1841.  The  winter  of  1841  was  cold,  and  in  1842  there  was  no  damage  to  the  crop  by 
the  caterpillar.  The  winter  of  1842, 1  find,  was  mild  and  drier,  the  first  frost,  November 
10,  killing  the  cotton,  which  was  then  green.  July  15, 1843, 1  find  a  caterpillar  chrys- 
alis— the  crop  of  this  year  was  destroyed."  Mr.  Jones  planted  before  this  early  ma- 
turing of  cotton,  and  his  dates  would  now  be  earlier. 

Correspondents  usually  report  three  broods.  The  larvae  draw  together  the  flexible 
green  leaves  of  any  plant  in  the  cotton-fields  to  form  a  resting  place  for  pupae. 

Most  correspondents  make  no  mention  of  the  chrysalis  in  winter.  Hon.  J.  B.  Jones, 
Burke  County,  says:  "They  are  to  be  seen  in  the  chrysalis  state  after  frost,  I  think, 
but  do  not  believe  they  survive  the  winter."  Mr.  William  Jones,  Liberty  County, 
says :  "  I  have  collected  a  number  of  chrysalides  and  hung  them  in  a  northern  exposure, 
where  they  survived  a  temperature  of  12°  Fahr.  After  this  I  left  home  and  watched 
them  no  longer."  Mr.  William  Denham,  Putnam  County,  reports  finding  chrysalides 
alive  under  the  bark  of  trees  after  frost,  and  Mr.  Spencer,  Mitchell  County,  finding 
some  in  an  old  stump.  There  is  no  certainty  that  they  were  the  pupae  of  Aletia. 
Some  farmers  believe,  from  seeing  brown  pupae  plowed  up  in  winter  and  spring, 
that  the  larvae  of  Aletia  may  accidently  fall  into  cracks  or  holes  in  the  earth  and  there 
pupate  and  spend  the  winter. 

6. 

Correspondents  report  the  natural  enemies  as  birds  (specifying  bluebirds,  rice-birds, 
and  quails),  chickens,  turkeys,  wild  and  tame ;  dogs,  hogs,  ants,  and  wasps.  The  two 


APPENDIX  I REPORTS  OF  OBSERVERS.         361 

last  visit  the  plants,  it  is  probable,  the  ants  in  search  of  spiders,  and  the  wasps  to  suck 
the  sweets  secreted  by  the  leaf  and  boll  glands.  I  have  seen  honey-bees  and  species 
of  wasps  thus  busily  engaged  from  day  to  day. 

7. 

No  great  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  destruction  of  the  moths,  lavae,  and  chry- 
salides in  interior  Georgia,  inasmuch  as  the  insect  wasnot  very  destructive  till  some  ten 
years  since.  On  the  coast  and  islands  it  was  the  custom  of  planters,  many  years  since, 
to  burn  all  stubble  in  the  cotton-fields  during  the  winter. 

In  1872-73  the  most  determined  attempts  at  destruction  were  made  in  Southern 
Georgia  with  lamps  and  molasses  for  the  moths.  Paris  green  and  arsenious  acid  for 
the  larvae,  and  hand-picking  for  the  larvae  and  chrysalides.  As  samples,  Capt.  John 
A.  Cobb,  Sumter  County,  writes:  "I  tried  the  caterpillar  lamp,  burnt  over  100  of 
them  for  several  weeks,  spent  several  hundred  dollars  in  the  experiment,  but  do  not 
believe  it  paid.  If  all  my  neighbors  had  used  the  lamps  the  result  might  have  been 
different.  But  I  believe  my  lamps  attracted  more  flies  from  the  adjacent  fields  than 
were  killed  by  them."  Mr.  K.  Burton,  of  Schley  County,  writes :  "  I  have  used  plates 
of  sweetened  water,  fires  on  stumps,  lanterns,  caught  and  destroyed  thousands  (hav- 
ing found  50  millers  in  one  plate  of  molasses  and  water)  with  but  poor  success." 

Paris  green  mixed  with  flour  and  slippery-elm  bark  and  arsenious  acid  in  water,  one 
pound  to  the  barrel,  were  used  in  Dougherty  and  adjoining  counties  in  1873.  The 
former  was  sifted  and  the  latter  sprinkled  by  hand  on  the  cotton-plant.  Alaj.  R.  J. 
Bacou,  of  Albany,  says  he  thereby  saved  a  large  crop  of  cotton,  but  thinks  the  expense 
about  equaled  the  value  of  cotton  saved. 

Rev.  C.  S.  Goulden,  of  Thomasville,  Ga.,  employed  women  and  children  to  collect  the 
caterpillars.  They  kept  the  plants  free  from  worms,  but  the  expense  about  equaled 
the  saving. 

Capt.  G.  M.  Bacon,  Mitchell  County,  encouraged  the  gathering  of  the  chrysalides  by 
paying  so  much  per  quart  for  the  pupae,  free  from  all  leaves  and  trash.  He  thus  se- 
cured and  destroyed  the  very  large  quantity  of  9  bushels  and  27  quarts.  He  doubts 
whether  there  was  any  pecuniary  gain. 

J.  E.  WILLET. 

MAC  ox,  GA. 


REPORT  OF  WILLIAM  TRELEASE,  OF  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. 

HABITS  AND  NATURAL  HISTORY. 

Belonging  to  the  Lepidoptera,  Aletla  has  a  complete  metamorphosis,  passing  through 
four  well-marked  states  of  development,  viz,  egg,  larva  or  caterpillar,  pupa  or  chrys- 
alis, and  imago  or  moth.  These  will  be  considered  somewhat  in  detail  in  the  order  in 
which  they  have  been  mentioned,  and  this  discussion  will  then  be  followed  by  some 
general  remarks  concerning  the  number  of  broods  which  occur  each  year,  and  the  way 
in  which  the  species  is  perpetuated  from  one  year  to  another. 

In  the  section  of  Alabama  where  I  studied  Alctia,  I  found  comparatively  few  planters 
who  knew  the  appearance  of  the  egg  from  which  the  cotton  caterpillar  is  hatched. 
Most  of  them  readily  admitted  that  the  reason  they  had  never  seen  the  egg  was  be- 
cause they  had  never  looked  for  it ;  but  occasionally  one  was  found  who  emphatically 
stated  that  the  "  cotton-fly  "  never  lays  eggs,  but  deposits  little  caterpillars  on  the  leaf, 
"  for,"  he  would  say,  "  I've  been  about  cotton  a  good  many  years,  and  I  never  saw  an 
egg,  but  I  have  seen  thousands  of  little  caterpillars."  Negative  evidence  was  all-con- 
vincing to  such  men ;  and  their  signs  of  disgust,  when  told  that  the  men  who  had  paid 
most  attention  to  this  subject  always  found  eggs,  were  very  amusing. 

To  find  these  eggs  when  there  are  few  of  them — as  in  the  early  part  of  the  season — 
is  by  no  means  an  easy  task ;  for,  until  the  species  becomes  largely  represented,  there 
IB  rarely  more  than  one  egg  to  a  leaf,  and  perhaps  only  one  leaf  on  every  ninth  or  tenth 
plant  bears  even  one  egg.  When,  however,  the  moths,  or  "  flies,"  as  planters  call  them, 
are  seen  in  large  numbers  about  the  cotton-fields,  eggs  may  be  found  on  nearly  every 
plant,  the  fewest  being  on  stunted  plants  which  have  ceased  active  growth.  These 
eggs  are,  to  the  naked  eye,  depressed  hemispheres,  about  as  large  as  a  small  pin-head, 
their  flat  surface  being  next  the  leaf.  They  are  of  a  bluish-green  or  copperas  color, 
and  this  alone  would  make  it  easy  to  distinguish  them  from  other  eggs  or  plant-lice, 
even  were  it  not  for  their  peculiar  form.  As  a  rule,  planters  see  the  first  signs  of  the 
caterpillar  on  the  upper,  tender  leaves  of  a  cotton-plant,  and,  without  looking  for  the 
eggs  from  which  the  larvae  that  they  see  were  hatched,  they  conclude  at  once  that  the 
eggs  are  laid  almost  exclusively  on  those  leaves ;  but,  as  we  shall  see,  this  is  not  the 
case.  In  July,  when  the  eggs  were  being  laid  from  which  the  fourth  brood  of  larvae 
should  emerge,  I  noticed  that  most  of  those  that  I  found  were  deposited  singly  on  the 
lower  surface  of  rather  tender  leaves  near  the  top  of  the  plant  or  the  ends  of  the 


362 


REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 


branches,  though  not  on  the  very  young  leaves.  Late  in  August,  when  the  eggs  for 
the  fifth  brood  were  being  laid,  I  found  from  one  to  nine  eggs  on  some  leaves,  while 
other  leaves  bore  none ;  and  those  which  bore  eggs  were,  as  a  rule,  large  leaves  near 
the  middle  of  the  plant.  The  average  number  on  one  of  these  leaves  I  judged  to  be 
about  four.  To  get  more  accurate  results  I  examined,  leaf  by  leaf,  three  plants,  with 
the  results  given  below,  and  these  partially  confirm  my  previous  observations.  In 
these  tables  the  branches  are  counted  from  below  upward,  and  the  leaves,  from  the 
base  of  a  branch  to  its  tip.  Only  unhatched  eggs  were  counted,  and  such  larvae  as 
were  too  small  to  have  been  born  on  a  different  leaf  from  that  on  which  they  were 
found. 

Plant  No.  1,  August  28,  1879. 


Branch. 

1 

1 

j 

Branch. 

I 

i 

S  , 

j 

Numberl  

Number 
1 

0 

0 

Number  8       ... 

Number 
2 

3 

2 

2 

1 

o 

o 

3 

4 

o 

2 

o 

o 

9  

1 

5 

o 

3 

3 
1 

0 

o 

0 

o 

3 
3 

0 
3 

0 

o 

2 

1 

1 

10 

1 

5 

4 

1 

2 

o 

2 

o 

5  

2 
3 
1 

1 
1 
1 

1 

0 

o 

11  ». 

3 
4 
1 

0 
1 
0 

2 
3 

4 

0 
0 

o 

0 
0 

o 

12 

2 
3 
1 

0 
0 

o 

6  

5 
1 

0 
3 

0 

1 

13 

2 
1 

0 

o 

2 
3 

1 
1 

0 

o 

Stalk                     .  . 

2 
1* 

0 
1 

o 

7 

1 

1 

1 

2* 

1 

o 

g 

2 
3 
1 

0 

1 

9 

0 
0 

o 

3t 
4t 
5* 

0 
0 

o 

0 
0 

o 

*  A  medium-sized  leaf. 


t  A  small  leal 


J  A  very  small  leaf. 


This  was  a  spindling  plant  about  four  feet  high.  The  leaves  marked  No.  1,  on 
branches  8,  9, 10, 11, 12,  and  13,  really  belonged  to  the  stem,  the  branches  being  in 
their  axils,  and  they  were  the  largest  leaves  on  the  plant.  The  leaves  marked  as  be- 
longing to  the  stalk  were  situated  above  the  highest  branch. 

An  examination  of  this  table  will  show  that  the  eggs  were  distributed  according  to 
branches  as  follows : 

No.  1. 


Branch. 

i 
1 

H 

Branch.    . 

i 

Larvae. 

o 

o 

Number  8 

16 

2 

2  

o 

0 

9   

8 

0 

3       

1 

10 

6 

() 

4 

4 

1 

o 

o 

5                          .  .. 

1 

o 

12 

0 

o 

6 

5 

1 

13 

o 

7  

2 

1 

Stalk  above  13                      ... 

2 

0 

' 

1 

Is 

$ 

The  bottom  ... 

14 

8 

The  middle 

14 

40 

14 

3 

Total 

42 

51 

APPENDIX  I REPORTS  OF  OBSERVERS. 

Plant  No.  2,  August  28,  1879. 


363 


Branch. 

| 

1 

1 

Branch. 

1 

! 

Larvae. 

Number  1  

Number 
1— 

0 

Number 
1± 

i 

0 

2± 
3— 
4-t 
5± 
6± 

0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

11  . 

2± 
3± 
4± 
5— 

1± 

2 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2  

7± 
8± 
9— 
1— 

0 
2 
0 
0 

0 
0 

It 

4± 
5- 

0 
0 
0 
0 

2— 
3— 

0 
0 

0 
0 

12  

6= 

1+ 

0 
0 

3 

4— 
5— 
1— 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

3+ 
4± 

0 
0 
0 

2— 
3— 
4— 
5— 
6=> 

0 
0 

1 

2 
0 

0 

1 

0 
0 

o 

13      

5= 
6± 

It 
1+ 

0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

4 

7± 

1 

0 

0 
0 

3+ 

0 
3 

0 
0 

s 

0 
0 
0 
0 

o 

0 
0 
0 
0 

o 

14  

l-xlOOi*. 

f  II  1  H-K- 

3 
1 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

5  

1— 

0 

0 

2— 

0 

0 

6  

2± 
3± 
4± 
1± 

0 

1 

0 
2 

0 
0 
0 
0 

34- 

4± 
5- 
6— 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

2± 

o 

o 

15 

1+ 

o 

o 

7 

£ 

6= 

1 

0 
0 
0 

o 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

10  

I* 

5= 

1+ 

0 
0 

1 

0 
2 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

£ 

1 

0 
2 

0 
0 
1 

17       

s 

1-1- 

0 
0 

o 

0 
0 

o 

8  

5= 

1± 

0 
3 

0 
0 

2± 

0 
0 

0 
0 

2- 

1 

0 

o 

18 

4= 

0 

o 

0 

o 

5± 
6± 

0 
3 

o 

0 
0 

o 

19      

s 

0 
0 

o 

0 
0 

o 

g 

7- 
8= 

0 
0 

o 

0 
0 

o 

Stalk 

2— 
3= 

0 
0 

o 

0 
0 

o 

2± 
3± 

0 
0 

o 

0 
0 
0 

o 

Buda      

2- 
3± 

4= 

0 
0 

o 

0 
0 
0 

o 

6- 
7= 

0 
0 

0 
0 

Examining  this  table,  we  find  the  following  distribution ; 


364 


EEPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 
No.  2. 


Branch. 

I 

1 
W 

Larvae. 

Branch. 

1 

i 

i 

1 

Number     1  

g 

3 

0 

2  

5 

0 

0 

Stalk  

4 

0 

0 

4  

G 

0 

0 

Total  

111 

50 

3 

5  

4 

1 

0 

7 

5 

3 

1 

3 

g 

g 

o 

9 

7 

1 

0 

10 

5 

g 

o 

2  <B 

11  

6 

1 

o 

£ 

*  a 

1-2 

g 

g 

o 

1 

&£ 

13  

7 

7 

1 

I 

3r 

14  ... 

0 

0 

0 

15  

16 

5 
3 

2 

0 

o 

Bottom  third  

37 

12 

17 

4 

o 

o 

Middle  third 

37 

28 

18  

3 

0 

o 

37 

13 

NOTE  — In  Table  2  -f  indicates  a  large  leaf ;  ± ,  a  medium-sized  loaf ;  —  a  small  loaf ;  and 
small  one. 

Plant  No.  3,  September  1,  1879. 


Branch. 

| 

Length  of 
leaf. 

I 

j 

Branch. 

I 

Length  of 
leaf. 

i 

i 

No. 

Incites. 

Number  6  

No* 

Inches. 

Number  1  

I 

3-" 

0 

0 

2 

3 

0 

0 

2 

3- 

0 

0 

3 

n 

0 

3 

4 

1 

0 

4 

24 

0 

4 

2 

0 

0 

5 

4 

1 

5 

4 

0 

0 

0 

6 

5 

0 

0 

xi{ 

0 

7 

4 

0 

5 

1 

8 

1 

0 

0 

Bft 

1 

Numbers  

1 

4 

0 

0 

Number  7  

4 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

5 

1 

3 

3 

0 

0 

5 

0 

Numbers  

1 

5 

0 

0 

4 

0 

2 

4 

t 

1 

0 

«i 

1 

3 

3 

k. 

0 

0 

5 

0 

4 

i 

1 

2 

0 

5 
6 

5 
3 

0 
0 

0 
0 

8 

a 

4J 

0 
0 

7 

5 

, 

0 

0 

10 

6 

0 

8 

3 

0 

0 

11 

4 

1 

9 
10 
11 

1 

! 

3 

0 

0 

0 
0 

12 
13 
14 

6 

8 

1 

0 
0 

0 
0 

Number  4  

1 

5 

1 

0 

15 

6 

0 

0 

2 

2 

. 

0 

2 

16 

2} 

0 

0 

3 

5 

0 

17 

31 

1 

0 

4 

2 

0 

0 

18 

2 

0 

0 

5 

6 

2 

0 

19 

1 

0 

0 

G 

3 

i 

0 

0 

20 

51 

0 

0 

7 

2 

I 

1 

0 

Numbers  

1 

Gi 

1 

1 

8 

4 

2 

0 

2 

3 

0 

0 

9 

5 

2 

1 

3 

6 

0 

0 

10 

5 

, 

1 

4 

2J 

1 

0 

Numbers  

11 
1 

4 

0 

1 

0 
0 

5 

6 

5 

0 

1 

2 

1 

2 

5 

0 

2 

7 

5 

0 

1 

3 

4 

4 

0 

1 

1 

0 

8 
9 

3 
6 

0 
2 

0 
0 

5 
G 

7 

1 

1 

0 
0 

2 
1 
0 

10 
11 
12 

P 

1 

2 
0 

0 

1 
1 

8 

5 

0 

0 

Number  9...... 

1 

7 

0 

0 

9 

4 

0 

0 

"N 

2 

4 

2 

2 

Number  6  

1 

5 

0 

0 

3 

4 

0 

0 

APPENDIX  I REPORTS  OP  OBSERVERS. 


365 


Plant  No.  3 — Continued. 


Branch. 

| 

•8 

i 

Larvae. 

Branch. 

| 

Length  of 
loaf. 

i 

1 

No. 

Inches. 

STo, 

Inche 

S. 

Number  9  

4 

2 

0 

Number  13  

11 

2 

0 

5 

6 

7 

| 

0 
0 
1 

Number  14  

1 
2 
3 

1 

0 
0 
0 

8 

3 

1 

4 

6 

2 

9 

*i 

0 

5 

§ 

1 

Number  10  

1 

el 

0 

6 

3 

2 

6 

0 

7 

5^ 

0 

0 

3 

3 

0 

Number  15  

1 

55 

1 

0 

4 

0 

2 

3= 

3 

0 

5 

5i 

1 

3 

5 

1 

0 

6 

5£ 

0 

4 

5 

0 

0 

7 

5i 

1 

5 

3i 

0 

0 

8 

3 

0 

Number  16  .... 

1 

7 

0 

0 

Number  11  

1 

1 

2 

6 

2 

1 

2 

3£ 

0 

3 

5i 

0 

0 

3 

4 

5 

0 
0 

4 
5 

^ 

2 
0 

0 
0 

5 

6 

0 

1 

Number  17  

6 
1 

1 

0 
0 

0 

1 

7 

5J 

0     . 

2 

0 

0 

8 
9 
10 

I 

0 
0 

1 

0 
0 

Number  18  

3 
4 
1 

7 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

Number  12  

1 

7 

1 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

2 

3i 

0 

0 

3 

31 

0 

0 

3 

4 

0 

4 

6 

0 

0 

4 
5 

9 

0 

1 

0 
0 

5 
6 

6 
5 

0 
0 

0 
0 

6 

6 

1 

0 

7 

2i 

0 

0 

7 

5 

1 

0 

Number  19  

1 

C: 

0 

0 

Number  13  

1 

7 

0 

0 

2 

2; 

0 

0 

2 

2J 

0 

0 

3 

5; 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

4 

5; 

0 

1 

4 

4| 

0 

0 

5 

3i 

0 

1 

5 

51 

0 

0 

Number  20  

1 

7- 

0 

6' 

5J 

0 

0 

2 

2; 

0 

7 

2 

0 

0 

3 

3 

0 

8 

61 

0 

0 

Number  21  

1 

5 

0 

9 

6 

0 

0 

2 

5; 

0 

10 

<t 

0 

0 

3 

0 

Arranging  these  by  branches,  as  was  done  with  the  other  tables,  we  find  the  follow- 
ing distribution : 

No.  3. 


Branch. 

i 

1 

i 

Branch. 

t 

ol 

fcJO 

S 

i 

Number  1 

8 

1 

2 

Number  10 

o 

2  

3 

0 

0 

20 

3 

1 

o 

3 

n 

5 

3 

21 

3 

o 

o 

4 

11 

9 

5 

5 

9 

3 

6 

Total 

168 

fifi 

36 

6  

9 

3 

0 

7  

8 

20 
12 

5 

8 

2 

7 

9  

9 

6 

2 

10 

8 

2 

2 

94 

11  

10 

3 

1 

o 

«§ 

12  

7 

5 

0 

i* 

s>§ 

13 

11 

0 

o 

5 

rf3 

14  

7 

6 

2 

15  

16 

5 
6 

5 

4 

0 
1 

56 

41 

17  

4 

0 

1 

Middle  third 

56 

35 

18.. 

7 

0 

o 

Upper  third 

56 

26 

366  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

In  all  of  these  tables  care  was  taken  to  count  only  those  larva}  which  were  so  small 
that  there  was  every  probability  of  their  having  been  hatched  on  the  leaf  where 
they  were  found ;  and  the  tables  were  prepared  at  the  time  when  most  of  the  eggs  for 
the  fifth  brood  had  been  laid  and  a  few  were  beginning  to  hatch. 

From  an  examination  of  the  first  table  it  appears  that  on  this  plant  there  were  three 
and  a  half  times  as  many  eggs  (including  the  young  larvae)  on  the  middle  third  of  the 
plant  as  on  the  other  two-thirds  combined. 

The  second  table  shows  that  the  eggs  were  more  evenly  distributed  on  the  second 
plant  examined  than  on  the  first,  yet  the  middle  third  bore  more  than  the  rest  of  the 
plant. 

It  may  be  seen  from  the  third  table  that  on  the  third  plant  the  distribution  of  the 
eggs  was  still  more  uniform,  and  here  the  number  on  the  middle  third  is  intermediate 
between  that  on  the  other  two-thirds,  the  larger  number  being  found  on  the  bottom 
third  of  the  plant. 

Averaging  the  three.tables,  we  find  that  there  are  20  eggs  for  the  bottom  third  of  a 
plant,  34  for  the  middle  third,  and  14  for  the  upper  third.  The  middle  third  averages 
as  many  as  the  other  two-thirds  taken  together. 

On  the  first  plant  those  leaves  which  bore  eggs  at  all  averaged  2.7  per  leaf,  on  the  sec- 
ond plant  1.7,  and  on  the  third  plant  1.5.  On  the  three  plants  the  average  number  is 
1.9  eggs  per  leaf.  This,  I  think,  may  fairly  be  taken  as  representing  the  abundance 
of  eggs  in  the  section  where  my  observations  were  made,  for  the  first  plant  was  an 
average  representative  of  the  field  in  which  it  grew,  and  the  caterpillars  were  very 
abundant  there.  The  second  was  taken  from  a  field  where  there  were  fewer  worms, 
and  the  third  was  taken  from  a  field  where  there  were  very  few  caterpillars  before  the 
fifth  brood  appeared,  so  that  the  eggs  counted  were  nearly  all  deposited  by  moths 
which  had  come  from  other  fields. 

Oviposition  being  dependent  upon  the  instinct  of  a  living  animal  and  not  upon  nat- 
ural laws,  figures  like  these  will  not  enable  us  to  predict  where  any  individual  moth 
will  lay  its  eggs ;  but  as  instinct  is  pretty  constant  with  insects  they  may  be  taken  as 
showing  what  commonly  occurs. 

Of  several  hundred  eggs  that  I  examined,  probably  not  a  half  a  dozen  were  laid  on 
any  part  of  the  cotton-plant  but  the  lower  surface  of  the  leaves.  Most  of  these  were 
deposited  on  the  lamella  of  the  blade,  a  very  few  on  the  veins.  Two  or  three  were 
found  on  the  upper  surface  of  the  leaves ;  one  was  seen  on  the  peduncle  or  flower- 
stalk,  about  one-eighth  of  an  inch  from  the  base  of  the  flower ;  and  two  were  noticed 
on  the  outer  surface  of  the  involucre  around  the  flower.  As  a  rule  they  were  not  laid 
close  together,  yet  once  or  twice  two  were  found  almost  in  contact. 

Under  natural  conditions,  late  in  summer,  I  found  that  the  eggs  of  Aletia  usually 
hatch  in  the  course  of  the  first  four  days  after  being  deposited ;  but  the  time  required 
seems  to  vary  according  to  the  temperature,  as  1  found  that  some  hatched  in  about  two 
days,  while  others  that  were  taken  into  the  house  required  upwards  of  a  week,  and  a 
considerable  number  blacken  and  never  hatch,  from  some  cause  that  I  was  unable  to  de- 
termine. After  the  exclusion  of  the  larva  the  eggshell  is  of  a  gray  or  whitish  color,  and 
sometimes  remains  adhering  to  the  leaf  for  a  considerable  length  of  time  ;  after  it  has 
been  removed  there  is  often  a  faint  impression  to  be  seen  where  it  was  attached  to  the 

When  first  hatched,  the  young  larva  feeds  on  the  parenchyma  of  that  surface  of  the 
leaf  on  which  it  chances  to  find  itself,  and  it  is  not  till  it  is  from  two  to  four  days  old 
that  it  perforates  the  cuticle  on  the  other  side  of  the  leaf.  The  first  direct  signs  of 
the  caterpillar  are,  therefore,  transparent  places  of  small  extent  and  more  or  less 
rounded  outline,  on  the  larger  leaves  of  the  plant.  Why  this  epidermis  should  be  left 
uneaten  I  am  unable  to  say  ;  but  as  the  larvae  are  usually  hatched  on  the  lower  sur- 
face of  the  leaf  it  appears  that  this  habit  may  be  due  to  an  instinct  teaching  the  larva 
to  preserve  this  screen  against  the  rays  of  the  sun  Avhile  it  is  very  young.  That  it  is 
an  instinct  seems  to  be  shown  by  the  fact  that  larvae  hatched  on  the  upper  surface  of 
the  leaf,  in  confinement,  ate  the  parenchyma  from  this  surface  and  left  the  cuticle 
untouched  on  the  lower  side.  Though  small  places  are  often  found  where  young 
larvae  have  eaten  the  lower  side  of  the  leaf  without  perforating  the  epidermis,  while 
the  larvae  cannot  be  found,  I  have  no  evidence  that  a  caterpillar  ever  leaves  the  leaf 
on  which  it  was  born  till  it  is  old  enough  to  eat  through  it ;  and  in  the  cases  just  men- 
tioned I  believe  that  the  larvae  have  been  removed  by  some  predaceous  animal. 

Having  reached  the  age  of  three  or  four  days,  many  larvae  go  from  the  tough  leaves, 
where  they  have  passed  the  early  part  of  their  existence,  to  the  tender  leaves  near  the 
top  of  the  plant  and  the  ends  of  the  branches,  and,  eating  the  substance  of  these  leaves 
from  between  the  veins,  which  are  left  intact,  they  honeycomb  or  rag  them,  and  this 
is  generally  the  first  sign  of  their  presence  that  is  noticed  by  planters,  though  when 
they  are  sufficiently  numerous  to  make  this  honeycombing  very  noticeable  a  peculiar 
odor  is  perceived  in  the  cotton-field,  which  seems  to  be  due  not  only  to  the  crushing  of 
the  leaves  by  the  mandibles  of  the  caterpillars,  but  to  the  large  quantity  of  excre- 
ment which  they  void,  and  which,  from  the  rapid  passage  of  their  food  through  their 


APPENDIX  I REPORTS  OF  OBSERVERS.         367 

bodies,  is  only  partially  digested.  When  there  are  not  very  many  caterpillars  they  do 
no  more  than  to  partly  eat  these  upper  leaves,  excepting  early  in  the  season,  when  few 
leaves  are  expanded  and  the  cotton-plants  are  very  small,  when  a  single  larva  has 
then  been  known  to  completely  defoliate  two  or  three  plants.  When  more  abundant 
they  eat  all  of  the  parenchyma  from  between  the  veins  of  these  leaves  and  rag  the 
lower  leaves  to  a  certain  extent ;  and  when  very  numerous  they  reduce  every  leaf  on 
the  plant  to  a  mere  skeleton,  consisting  of  the  stronger  veins,  besides  eating  up  the 
flowers  and  flower  buds*  and  the  involucres  or  "squares"  from  about  the  bolls, 
while  frequently  they  eat  large  irregular  holes  in  the  half -grown  bolls,  and  sometimes 
go  so  far  as  to  gnaw  the  bark  from  the  stem  of  the  plant. 

When  there  are  enough  caterpillars  to  eat  the  entire  foliage  from  a  plant  those 
which  are  not  full  grown  migrate  in  search  of  food  on  other  plants,  while  those  already 
grown  seek  some  kind  of  leaves  in  which  to  transform  to  pupae.  Thus  it  happens  that 
after  a  large  field  has  been  eaten  out  one  may  see  thousands  of  larvae  of  all  sizes  crawl- 
ing in  .every  direction  over  the  ground.  At  night  most  of  these,  larvae  ascend  the  cot- 
ton-plants near  which  they  chance  to  be,  and  remain  quiet  till  the  next  day,  when 
their  search  is  renewed.  This  is  the  only  marching  that  I  observed,  t 

The  natural  food  of  Aletia  larvae  appears  to  be  only  the  leaves  of  the  cotton-plant, 
at  least  in  this  country.  Though  they  were  seen  to  eat  bracts,  calyx,  corolla,  stamens, 
and  pist.ils  of  the  cotton-flowers,  as  well  as  the  walls  of  the  boll  and  the  half-grown 
seeds  which  it  contained,  and  even  the  bark  of  the  plant,  as  stated  above,  they  were 
never  seen  to  feed  upon  any  other  plant.  Larvae  of  various  sizes  were  several  times 
transferred  from  cotton  to  three  other  malvaceous  plants,  but  they  remained  on  them 
a  very  short  time,  and  did  not  attempt  to  eat  their  leaves.  Confined  in  breeding  jars 
with  leaves  of  these  plants  they  preferred  starving  to  feeding  upon  the  food  given 
them ;  and  the  only  time  that  I  ever  saw  one  attempt  to  eat  anything  but  parts  of  the 
cotton-plant  was  when  one  of  these  ate  a  very  little  parenchyma  from  the  lower  sur- 
face of  an  okra  leaf. 

A  strange  peculiarity  of  this  species  is  the  variation  in  color  which  occurs  in  its  dif- 
ferent broods  of  larvae — thus :  up  to  the  middle  of  July  no  larvae  were  found  which 
were  not  of  a  light  green  color ;  but  of  what  the  planters  call  the  "  first  crop  "  in  July 
I  found  a  small  percentage  to  have  black  or  dark  brown  dorsal  stripes.  Of  the  "  sec- 
ond crop,"  in  August,  about  one-half  were  dark  striped,  some  of  them  possessing  lat- 
eral stripes,  so  that  they  appeared  almost  entirely  black ;  and  by  far  the  greater  part 
of  the  "  third  crop,"  in  September,  were  very  dark.  Several  larvae,  of  next  to  the  last 
brood,  were  reared  from  the  egg  in  dark  boxes  in  the  house,  so  that  the  only  light 
which  they  received  was  once  or  twice  a  day,  when  their  boxes  were  opened  a  few 
minutes  to  change  their  food  leaves.  At  first  they  were  green,  though  with  a  cloudy 
appearance ;  but  as  they  grew  older  they  became  striped  with  black,  so  as  to  resemble 
tile  darkest  larvae  of  the  preceding  brood.  This  shows  that  the  direct  action  of  light 
is  not  needed  to  produce  this  color  change,  and  that  it  is  a  progressive  change,  keeping 
pace  with  the  growth  of  the  larvae.  What  its  physiological  importance  is  I  am  unable 
to  say4 

•In  August,  when  the  fourth  brood  of  larvae  were  at  work,  I  saw  many  of  them  eating  both  the 
petals  of  flowers  and  the  entire  contents  of  unopened  flower  buds,  though  there  were  plenty  of  leaves 
still  remaining  on  the  planta. 

t  In  talking  with  planters  I  find  that  many  of  them  apply  the  name  "  army-worm  "  to  this  species 
in  seasons  when  its  later  broods  appear  in  great  numbers  in  places  where  no  signs  of  the  earlier  broods 
have  been  seen.  Their  numbers  are  sometimes  so  large  that  two  or  three  days  suffice  for  them  to  strip 
the  foliage  from  thousands  of  acres  of  cotton  where  no  signs  of  the  worm  had  been  previously  noticed. 
"When  there  are  enough  of  them  to  do  that  there  would  be  a  sufficient  number  crossing  the  roads 
about  the  field  to  give  the  impression  of  an  army  in  motion,  though  there  might  be  no  system  to  their 
marching. 

JSome  facts  bearing  on  this  subject  of  larval  coloration  have  been  collected  by  Sir  John  Lubbock 
(Scientific  Lectures,  London,  1879),  but  they  do  not  suggest  to  me  an  explanation  of  the  present  case. 
He  says,  (page  49):  "  In  various  genera  we  find  black  caterpillars,  which  are  of  course  very  conspicuous, 
and,  sj>  far  as  I  know,  not  distasteful  to  birds.  In  such  cases,  however,  it  will  be  found  that  they  are 
covered  with  hairs  or  spines,  which  protect  them  from  most  birds.  In  these  cases  the  bold,  dark  color 
may  be  an  advantage,  by  rendering  the  hair  more  conspicuous."  Though  Aletia  is  somewhat  hairy.  I 
doubt  if  its  coating  is  much  of  a  protection,  and  I  did  not  notice  that  the  hairs  were  more  conspicuous 
on  the  black  than  on  the  green  larvas ;  on  the  contrary,  I  believe  that  they  are  less  apparent  as  seen 
against  the  black  background  of  the  insect's  body.  Sir  John  finds  that  of  sixty-six  British  butterfly 
larvae,  "  ten  are  black ;  and,  as  we  have  already  seen,  all  these  are  spiny  or  hairy."  When  speaking 
of  the  linear  markings  of  caterpillars  (page  45),  he  says:  "  It  is  important  that  there  should  be  certain 
marks  to  divert  the  eye  from  the  outlines  of  the  body.  This  is  effected,  and  much  protection  given,  by 
longitudinal  lines,  which  accordingly  are  found  on  a  great  many  caterpillars.  These  lines,  both  in  color 
and  thickness,  much  resemble  some  of  the  lines  on  leaves  (especially  those,  for  instance,  of  grasses), 


and  also  the  streaks  of  shadow  which  occur  among  foliage.  If,  however,  this  be  the  explanation  of 
them,  then  they  ought  to  be  wanting,  as  a  general  rule,  in  very  small  caterpillars,  and  to  prevail  most 
among  those  which  feed  on  or  among  grasses.  *  *  *  But  yon  will  find  that  the  smallest  caterpillars 
rarely  possess  these  white  streaka.  As  regards  the  second  point  also,  the  streaks  are  generally  want- 
ing in  caterpillars  which  feed  on  large-leaved  plants.  *  *  *  In  fact  we  may  say,  as  a  general  rule, 
that  these  longitudinal  streaks  only  occur  on  caterpillars  which  live  on  or  among  narrow-leaved  plants." 
As  I  have  stated,  both  the  production  of  the  linear  marks  and  the  change  in  the  ground  color  in  Aletia, 
are  progressive  as  the  larvae  increases  in  size  and  age,  but  so  far  as  I  know  these  larvae  never  feed  on 


368  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

When  resting  upon  the  leaf,  or  feeding,  the  larvae  are  often  very  restless.  When 
disturbed,  the  smaller  ones  allow  themselves  to  drop  from  the  leaf,  first  taking  the 
precaution  to  attach  a  silken  thread  to  it  so  that  they  can  arrest  their  descent  or  as- 
cend at  will.  The  older  larvae,  under  similar  circumstances,  hold  the  posterior  half  of 
their  bodies  to  the  leaf  by  means  of  their  prolegs,  while  they  quickly  sway  the  ante- 
rior half  from  side  to  side.  If  further  disturbed  —  or  sometimes  even  at  the  first  —  they 
throw  their  bodies  from  the  leaf,  alighting  on  a  lower  leaf  in  many  cases,  but  some- 
times falling  to  the  ground.  The  young  larva  runs  away  from  its  enemy  ;  the  older 
one  tries  to  frighten  him  at  first,  but,  failing  in  this,  runs  away  afterward.  It  is  in- 
teresting to  notice  that  while  larvae  often  escape  from  winged  enemies  such  as  the 
wasps,  by  exercising  this  saltatory  power,  they  often  ensure  their  quick  destruction 
by  using  this  same  power  when  attacked  by  ants,  for  when  once  the  ants  have  got  a 
larvae  that  they  are  attacking  on  the  ground  his  fate  is  certain. 

In  feeding,  I  find  that  the  larvae  rest  either  on  the  upper  or  lower  surface  of  the 
leaf,  but  more  frequently  on  the  latter.  They  have  been  found  on  the  upper  surface 
eating  ravenously,  though  exposed  to  the  rays  of  the  midday  sun,  when  the  land  in 
which  the  cotton  grew  was  so  heated  that  caterpillars  which  fell  from  the  plant  onto 
it  were  killed  by  the  heat  in  a  few  minutes  ;  but  as  a  general  thing  they  seem  to  eat 
most  early  in  the  morning  and  late  in  the  afternoon.  A  few  have  been  seen  eating 
after  dark,  but  when  examined  during  the  night  most  of  them  appeared  to  be  lying 
quietly  on  the  leaves. 

When  about  twelve  days  old,  the  larva  of  Aletia  draws  a  leaf  about  its  body,  fasten- 
ing it  with  a  yellowish  silk  spun  from  near  its  mouth.  This  process  is  known  to  plant- 
ers as  "  webbing  up."  In  the  course  of  the  next  twenty-  four  hours  its  body  shortens 
and  increases  in  diameter,  assuming  a  somewhat  fusiform  shape  j  those  parts  which 
were  light  green  become  bluish  or  of  a  copperas  color  ;  and  finally  it  sheds  its  skin  and 
becomes  a  pupa.  This  is  at  first  invested  in  a  delicate  green  membrane,  but  in  a  few 
hours  its  color  begins  to  change  to  a  brown,  which  sometimes  becomes  so  deep  as  to  ap- 
pear almost  black  ;  and  this  change  in  color  is  attended  by  a  toughening  and  hardening 
of  its  body  wall.  When  a  larva  has  webbed  up  in  a  leaf  on  the  cotton  plant  it  often 
happens  that  other  larvae  eat  the  leaf  from  about  it,  and  if  there  were  not  some  special 
provision  the  pupa  would  then  fall  to  the  ground.  But  nature  has  provided  for  such 
a  contingency  by  giving  it  a  set  of  hooks  at  its  sharp  or  posterior  extremity,  and  these, 
catching  in  its  web,  anchor  it  to  the  plant.  Still,  when  thus  exposed,  the  pupae  must 
suffer  more  from  their  natural  enemies,  and  especially  birds,  than  when  concealed  by  a 
leaf;  hence,  probably,  the  instinct  which  prompts  many  larvae  to  leave  the  plant  on. 
which  they  had  fed  and  web  up  in  the  leaves  of  the  cow-pea,  morning-glory,  grass,  or 
other  plants  growing  in  the  cotton-field,  while  there  may  be  plenty  of  uneaten  leaves 
on  the  plants  which  they  desert.  In  July  and  August  I  found  that  the  pupa  state 
lasted  usually  about  ten  days,  though  quite  often  it  would  reach  fifteen,  seeming  to  be 
influenced  by  the  temperature.  At  the  end  of  this  time  the  skin  of  the  pupa  is  rup- 
tured, and  through  the  opening  thus  formed  the  moth  emerges.  Though  neither  eat>- 
ing  nor  possessing  the  power  of  locomotion,  the  pupa  of  Aletia  can  vibrate  its  body 
rapidly  as  it  is  suspended  from  its  web  by  its  anal  hoo  ks  after  the  leaf  has  been  eaten 
from  about  it  ;  and  this,  like  the  similar  motion  of  the  larva,  probably  serves  to 
frighten  away  some  of  its  enemies. 

When  the  moth  emerges  from  the  pupa  shell,  its  wings  are  wet  and  useless,  and  if 
it  be  then  approached  it  can  escape  only  by  running,  aided  by  a  sort  of  hopping,  ia 
which  its  wings  assist  it  a  little.  But  in  a  short  time  the  superabundant  fluid  dries 
from  the  wings,  and  they  assume  the  form  characteristic  of  the  perfect  insect,  and  are 
then  used  in  flight.  How  long  the  moths  live  when  unconfined  I  have  no  means  of 
knowing,  but  in  breeding-jars  I  have  found  that  those  of  the  third  and  fourth  broods 
die  within  five  days  after  their  exclusion  from  the  pupa. 

Both  larvae  and  pupae  being  sexually  imperfect,  the  duty  of  reproducing  the  species 
devolves  upon  the  moths  ;  and  these  consist  of  males  and  females,  which  copulate,  the 
females  lay  their  eggs,  and  all  die  soon  after.  I  could  not  determine  how  soon  alter 
their  exclusion  these  moths  usually  copulate,  and  only  once  did  I  see  anything  that 
looked  like  coition,  while  oven  then  what  I  observed  may  not  have  been  copulation. 
The  facts  are  as  follows  :  While  watching  a  large  number  of  moths  collected  about  a 
jujube-tree,  on  the  fruit  of  which  they  feed,  and  which  I  had  illuminated  by  a  lantern 
hung  on  one  of  the  branches,  I  often  saw  one  moth  dart  at  another  in  its  flight,  hover 
over  it,  and  appear  to  come  in  contact  with  it,  the  whole  lasting  only  a  second  or  two, 
.after  which  they  separated  and  flew  away  in  different  directions.  In  my  breeding- 
jars,  when  kept  supplied  with  fresh  cotton-leaves,  the  female  moths  began  oviposition 

anything  but  the  cotton-plant,  the  leaves  of  which  are  broad  and  not  linear  like  those  of  grasses.  Fi- 
nally, "as  Weissniann  points  out,  wo  may  learn  another  very  interesting  fact  from  those  caterpillar*. 
They  leave  the  egg,  as  wo  have  seen,  a  plain  ereen,  like  so  many  other  caterpillars,  and  gradually 


, 

acquire  a  succession  of  markings.  The  young  larvae,  in  fact,  represents  an  old  form,  and  the  species, 
in  the  lapse  of  ages,  has  gone  through  the  stage  which  each  individual  now  passes  through  in  a  few 
weeks.  Thns,  then,  the  individual  life  of  certain  caterpillars  gives  us  a  clew  to  the  history  of  the  spe- 


APPENDIX I  -  REPORTS  OF  OBSERVERS.          369 

some  time  during  the  second  day  after  their  exclusion  ;  but  I  do  not  know  -whether 
they  begin  sooner  or  later  when  unconfined.  They  were  only  seen  laying  their  eggs 
once  or  twice,  and  this  was  done  in  a  very  interrupted  manner,  for  they  frequently 
flew  from  leaf  to  leaf  and  from  plant  to  plant,  each  moth  depositing  but  a  single  egg 
on  a  leaf,  while  frequently  they  would  stop  to  feed  on  the  nectar  secreted  by  the  cot- 
ton-plant. 

Like  many  lepidopterous  insects,  these  moths  feed  upon  nectar  and  the  juices  of 
fruits.  Of  the  first-mentioned  substance,  nectar,  by  far  the  largest  quantity,  is  elabo- 
rated by  glands  situated  in  the  flowers  of  many  phaenogamous  plants,  and  there  are  com- 
paratively few  plants  which  possess  nectar  glands  situated  outside  of  the  floral  envel- 
opes; yet  I  never  saw  an  Aletia  moth  visit  a  flower  for  nectar,  while  scores  of  them 
have  been  seen  to  feed  upon  the  extrafloral  nectar  of  the  following  plants:  l,the 
cotton-plant  (Gossypium  herbaceum);  2,  the  cow-pea  ;  3,  the  larger  coftee-  weed  (Cassia 


The  cotton-plant  possesses  extrafloral  glands  on  the  midrib  and  often  on  two  of  the 
lateral  veins  on  the  nnder-surface  of  each  of  its  leaves,  as  well  as  on  the  outside  of 
each  of  the  bracts  forming  the  involucre  or  square,  and  at  the  bottom  of  the  calyx 
alternating  with  these  bracts,  in  the  flowers  produced  later  in  the  season.  These  glands 
appear  as  shallow  pits,  and  usually  contain  a  drop  of  a  clear,  somewhat  viscid,  sweet 
fluid,  the  nectar.  When  feeding  upon  this  I  found  that  the  moths  usually  rested  on 
their  feet,  having  their  wings  held  horizontally  over  their  backs,  as  was  commonly  the 
case  when  they  were  at  rest.  In  some  few  instances  they  merely  balanced  themselves 
before  the  bract  from  the  gland  of  which  they  were  obtaining  nectar,  steadying  them- 
selves somewhat  by  their  prothoracic  legs,  but  maintaining  their  position  chiefly  by 
vibrating  their  wings.  In  all  cases,  when  feeding  upon  nectar,  I  found  that  the  moths 
repeatedly  coiled  and  uncoiled  their  long,  flexible  maxillae,  and  their  antennae  were 
usually  kept  in  rapid  motion. 

The  cow-peaand  whippoorwill  pea  possess  numbers  of  small,  circumvallate  glands  col- 
lected at  the  end  of  each  peduncle,  which  is  produced  slightly  beyond  the  last  flower. 
These  glands  secrete  an  abundance  of  nectar.  When  the  moths  of  Aletia  are  plentiful 
they  can  always  be  found  in  large  numbers  wherever  these  pea-vines  —  cultivated  be- 
twpen  the  rows  of  corn,  and  sometimes  in  cotton-  fields,  where  a  "  stand"  of  cotton  was 
not  obtained  —  grow,  and  I  have  seen  many  of  them  feeding  on  the  nectar. 

At  the  base  of  the  petioles  or  leaf-stalks  of  the  larger  coffee-  weed  are  single  globu- 
lar glands  of  a  reddish  or  brown  color,  and  their  convex  surface  secretes  a  considera- 
ble quantity  of  nectar.  When  feeding  upon  this  I  found  that  the  moths  preferably 
alighted  on  the  stem  just  below  the  leaf-stalk.  Standing  here,  with  their  heads  up- 
ward, they  rapidly  moved  the  tips  of  their  maxillae  over  the  entire  surface  of  the  gland, 
often  coiling  and  again  uncoiling  them  while  doing  this.  Meantime  their  antennae  were 
kept  in  constant  vibration,  touching  the  gland,  petiole,  stem,  and,  in  fact,  everything 
within  reach  of  them,  as  though  to  guard  against  surprise  by  their  enemies.  When 
another  moth,  of  their  own  or  some  other  species,  crowded  them  aside,  it  seemed  to  dis- 
turb them  very  little,  but  the  slightest  contact  with  nay  finger  always  made  them  take 
flight.  Occasionally  a  moth  alighted  on  the  petioles  or  on  the  flowers  or  pods  in  the 
axils  of  the  leaves,  and  it  then  stood  head  downward  while  eating  the  nectar,  but  by 
far  the  most  of  them  rest  on  the  stem,  as  described  above. 

The  following-named  plants  possess  extrafloral  nectar  glands  and  grow  more  or  less 
abundantly  where  my  observations  were  made  :  1,  the  smaller  coffee-weed  (Cassia  obtu- 
sifolia);  2,  the  partridge  pea  (C.  chamcedirista)  ;  3,  C.  nictitans,  sometimes  known  as 
the  wild  sensitive  plant,  but  to  be  distinguished  from  several  more  sensitive  legumi- 


nous genera,  including  Mimosa,  the  true  sensitive  plant,  growing  more  or  less  commonly 
in  the  same  region  ;  4,  the  wild  senna  (C.  marilandica) ;  5,  the  common  passion-flower^ 
or  May-pop,  (Passiflora  incarnata) ;  C,  the  cultivated  bonnet-squash.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  the  first,  these  all  secrete  a  considerable  quantity  of  nectar,  and,  though  I  did 
not  detect  the  moths  of  Aletia  in  feeding  upon  it,  there  is  no  reason  why  they  may  not 
sometimes  do  so,  since  other  insects  are  attracted  by  it. 

I  have  seen  the  adult  Aletia  feeding  on  the  following-named  fruits:  1,  the  peach, 
both  ripe  and  decaying ;  2,  the  apple ;  3,  the  fig ;  4,  the  scuppernoug  grape ;  5,  the 
jujube.  When  feeding  upon  the  peach  the  moth  forms  a  small  oval  opening  through 
the  rind  with  the  tips  of  its  maxillae ;  through  this  it  is  able  to  reach  the  interior  of 
the  peach,  from  which  it  extracts  the  juice.  Though  many  apples  were  examined,  I 
never  saw  one  the  skin  of  which  had  been  perforated  by  the  moth ;  but  where  birds 
had  eaten  holes  in  the  fruit  I  often  saw  motns  running  their  proboscides  into  the  flesh 
thus  laid  bare.*  Aletia  moths  were  often  seen  to  perforate  the  skin  of  the  common 
purple  fig  in  order  to  reach  the  juicy  interior,  though  sometimes  they  made  use  of  the 
opening  which  naturally  exists  at  the  large  end  of  the  fruit.  They  were  found  feed- 
ing on  the  juicy  pulp  of  the  grape,  through  the  thick  skin  of  which  they  seem  to  have 

*  Moths  were  also  seen  several  times  sucking  the  juice  from  apples  which  had  been  pared  and  sliced 
afterward  being  placed  in  the  sunlight  to  dry. 

24  C  I 


370  REPORT   UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

no  difficulty  in  working  their  maxillae,  forming  small  oval  holes  as  in  all  of  the  fruits 
previously  mentioned.  As  the  fruit  of  the  jujube  ripens,  its  hard  skin  cracks  in  places, 
and  these  are  utilized  by  the  moths,  which  are  thus  spared  the  labor  of  forming  open- 
ings for  themselves.  In  all  of  these  cases  the  juices  are  removed  from  the  fleshy  part 
of  the  fruit,  reducing  this  to  a  fibro-spongy  mass.  When  feeding,  the  moths  often  col- 
lect in  such  numbers  as  to  completely  cover  the  fruit,  and  several  may  be  seen  at  the 
same  time  with  their  proboscides  inserted  into  one  opening  in  the  skin  of  the  fruit.  A 
curious  thing  that  I  repeatedly  noticed,  but  which  may  not  always  occur,  is  that  when 
feeding  on  fruits  the  moths  usually  vibrate  their  antennae  very  little,  while  in  feeding 
on  nectar  they  keep  them  constantly  in  rapid  motion.  Though  I  saw  no  instance  of  it 
myself,  I  am  informed  that  the  moths  sometimes  feed  upon  decaying  pomegranates, 
but  do  not  trouble  those  which  are  sound. 

When  flying  from  one  place  to  another,  and  especially  after  being  disturbed,  the 
moth  moves  with  a  peculiar  darting  flight,  which  renders  it  exceedingly  difficult  of 
capture;  but  when  visiting  the  involucral  glands  of  cotton  or  the  glands  on  the  peti- 
oles of  the  coffee-weed,  I  have  noticed  that  it  often  hovers  with  a  steady  motion  from 
the  lower  part  of  the  plant  upward,  though  in  a  few  cases  I  saw  this  order  reversed. 
When  at  rest,  as  is  the  case  from  sunrise  to  sunset,  the  moth  clings  to  the  lower  surface 
of  the  leaves  of  cotton,  the  cow-pea,  and  such  other  plants  as  it  finds  convenient  to  its 
purpose,  or  occasionally  to  the  petioles  or  stems  of  these  plants.  When  settled  on  a 
leaf  I  have  found  that  the  moths  most  often  stand  with  their  heads  turned  toward  the 
base  of  the  leaf.  When  standing  on  a  leaf-stalk  they  likewise  usually  have  their  heads 

Eointing  to  the  stem  of  the  plant.    When  at  rest  on  the  stem  I  have  noticed  that  their 
eads  are  most  often  turned  toward  the  ground.    I  have  a  few  times  noticed  frightened 
moths  alight  on  the  horizontal  petioles  of  cotton-leaves,  clinging  to  the  sides  of  them 
with  their  heads  directed  upward. 

The  sense  of  sight  appears  to  be  quite  well  developed  in  these  moths.  Not  only  do 
they  often  see  an  approaching  person,  but  they  possess  some  notion  of  color.  Their 
color  sense  is  evinced  by  the  following  facts :  One  day,  between  sunset  and  dark,  while 
watching  large  numbers  of  moths,  I  noticed  that  many  of  them  flew  directly  at  the 
bright-orange  but  odorless  and  uneatable  berries  of  the  thorny  hedge-plant,  but, 
having  reached  the  berries,  they  immediately  flew  away  again.  It  was  also  no- 
ticed that  they  select  the  red  (ripe)  jujube  berries  for  food,  discerning  them  at  some 
distance,  though  surrounded  by  green  ones  ;  yet  here  the  sense  of  smell  may  possibly 
have  aided  them.  When  only  one  or  two  attack  a  peach  I  have  observed  that  they,  like 
birds,  choose  the  rosiest  side.  While  standing  without  a  coat,  a  little  after  sunset,  I 
found  that  numbers  of  moths  flew  against  the  sleeves  of  my  white  shirt,  and  when 
standing  after  dark  beneath  a  tree  in  which  a  lantern  was  hung  so  that  its  rays  fell  on 
me,  I  found  that  many  of  them  flew  against  my  white  hat.  These  observations  seem 
to  show  that  at  least  the  colors  orange,  red,  and  white  are  recognized  by  these  moths. 
This  color  sense  is  implied  in  the  remedy  spoken  of  in  the  Patent  Office  Report  for  lHr>,">, 
page  76,  viz.,  hanging  white  flags  in  the  cotton-fields  for  the  moths  to  lay  their  eggs 
on.  Though  I  often  used  an  open  lantern  in  making  my  observations,  I  did  not  find 
that  many  moths  of  this  species  were  attracted  to  it.  Occasionally  one  would  buzz 
against  it  when  there  were  hundreds  all  about  it,  but  by  far  the  greater  number  of  them 
ignored  it  entirely.  Some  few  were  attracted  into  the  house  by  lights,  but  they  formed 
a  very  insignificant  part  of  those  within  a  few  rods  of  the  house,  where  they  could 
not  fail  to  see  these  lights.  My  experience  seems  to  show  that  an  unsteady,  flaring 
light,  as  from  a  blazing  pine-knot,  is  far  more  attractive  than  the  steady  light  of  a 
lantern. 

Concerning  the  sense  of  smell  in  these  moths,  I  have  only  negative  evidence  to  offer. 
At  different  times  all  through  the  season,  and  constantly  until  the  first  of  July,  baits 
of  the  following  sorts  were  exposed :  vinegar  and  molasses  in  varying  proportions ; 
rum  and  molasses ;  beer  and  molasses ;  dried  apples  soaked  in  beer  sweetened  both 
with  sugar  and  molasses,  vinegar  or  rum  being  added  occasionally.  These  baits  were 
exposed  in  shallow  vessels,  smeared  on  the  trunks  of  trees  and  on  old  stumps,  &c., 
while  the  last  mentioned  was  hung  in  various  places  about  the  cotton-field.  Some 
were  watched  several  hours  'after  dark,  others  were  poisoned  .and  the  ground  about 
them  examined  early  in  the  morning ;  yet  not  above  half  a  dozen  adult  Aletlas  were 
captured  in  this  way,  most  of  the  victims  being  moths  of  other  species,  cockroaches, 
a  few  beetles,  and  some  small  leaf  hoppers.  This  seems  to  show  that  Aletia  is  not  very 
sensitive  to  odors  such  as  these  baits  produce,  and  which  are  found  so  attractive  to 
many  moths  of  the  noctuid  group.  Early  in  the  season  overripe  plums  were  crushed, 
sweetened,  and  allowed  to  ferment  before  being  exposed  to  the  visits  of  insects;  but 
the  species  attracted  by  this  bait  were  similar  to  those  just  mentioned.  In  early  Sep- 
tember, when  the  moths  of  Aletia  were  very  abundant,  scuppernoug  grapes  were  treated 
in  the  same  way,  and  these  did  attract  numbers  of  these  moths. 

Whatever  may  be  the  sense  or  combination  of  senses  guiding  it  in  the  instinct  which 
leads  it  to  deposit  its  eggs  on  nothing  but  the  cotton-plant,  I  cannot  say,  but  so  far  as 
I  know,  the  moth  never  oviposits  on  anything  else. 


APPENDIX  I REPORTS  OF  OBSERVERS.         371 

Since,  in  the  course  of  its  life,  Aletia  exists  in  the  four  states  of  egg,  larva,  pupa,  and 
imago,  four  theories  have  been  possible  concerning  the  form  in  -which  it  lives  from  one 
year  to  another ;  for  unless  one  or  more  of  these  forms  survived  the  winter,  the  species 
would  necessarily  cease  to  exist. 

Thus,  some  planters  believe  that  it  may  pass  the  winter  in  the  egg,  and  it  is  known 
that  some  lepidoptera  do  hibernate  in  this  state.  But  it  is  improbable  that  Aletia  does 
so,  at  least  in  the  United  States,  for  the  following  reasons :  The  larva,  on  its  emerg- 
ence from  the  egg,  must  be  where  it  can  readily  obtain  food,  else  it  will  perish  of  starva- 
tion. Now,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  it  never  feeds  on  anything  but  parts  of  the  cotton- 
plant  ;  therefore  the  eggs  must  be  deposited  either  on  some  part  of  this  plant  or  on 
something  closely  adjoining  it,  from  which  the  newly  hatched  larva  can  readily  reach 
the  plant.  But  the  cotton-plant  is  an  annual,  perishing  at  the  end  of  the  first  season, 
and  in  preparing  the  ground,  in  winter,  for  the  planting  of  the  next  spring,  the  stalks 
of  the  dead  plants  are  broken  down  and  plowed  under.  This  would  be  likely  to  destroy 
any  unhatched  eggs  laid  on  the  plant  late  in  the  fall.  For  the  same  reason  eggs  de- 
posited on  plants  growing  as  weeds  in  the  cotton-field  or  in  the  ground  would  in  all 
probability  be  killed. 

As  there  are  numbers  of  insects,  including  some  lepidoptera,  which  are  known  to  hiber- 
nate as  larvae,  it  has  been  suggested  that  this  species  may  pass  the  winter  so.  Lepidop- 
terous  larvae,  which  survive  the  winter,  are  usually  protected  from  the  cold  in  one  of  the 
following  ways :  1.  Wood-borers  are  inclosed  in  the  cavity  which  they  have  already 
formed  in  the  tree  on  which  they  feed.  2.  Some  leaf-eaters  form  hibernacula  of  the 
leaves  of  their  food  plant.  3.  Others  either  burrow  into  the  ground  or  shelter  them- 
selves beneath  stones  or  clods  of  earth.  As  Aletia  is  a  leaf-eating  caterpillar,  it  must 
hibernate  in  either  the  second  or  third  way  if  it  passes  the  winter  in  the  larval  state. 
Arriving  iu  the  cotton-belt  about  the  middle  of  May, 'and  leaving  about  the  middle  of 
September,  as  I  did,  I  was  unable  to  make  any  observations  bearing  upon  this  point ; 
but  I  cannot  learn  that  these  caterpillars  have  even  been  known  to  web  leaves  about 
themselves  excepting  when  about  to  pupate ;  and  even  if  they  were  to  do  so,  the  plow- 
ing under  of  the  dead  plants  would  be  likely  to  destroy  many  of  them.  My  own  obser- 
vations show  me  that  during  the  spring  and  summer  they  never  enter  the  ground 
nor  creep  beneath  stones,  and  I  am  told  that  they  are  never  found  when  the  ground  is 
plowed  late  in  the  winter.  These  facts  make  it  appear  extremely  improbable  that 
Aletia  ever  passes  the  winter  as  a  larva. 

Many  farmers  believe  that  this  insect  hibernates  as  a  pupa,  burrowing  into  the  ground 
for  protection  from  the  cold.  Years  ago  the  observations  of  scientific  men  showed 
that  frost  kills  such  Aletia  pupae  as  are  still  webbed  up  in  the  leaves  when  cold  weather 
comes  on  ;  and  I  have  never  seen  one  taken  from  the  ground,  nor  have  I  learned  of  an 
authentic  case  where  this  has  been  done,  the  planters  who  have  found  them  mistaking 
other  pupae  for  those  of  Aletia. 

A  large  number  of  insects,  including  some  lepidoptera,  are  known  to  hibernate  in 
the  perfect  state,  and  from  the  improbability  of  its  surviving  the  winter  in  any  other 
form,  as  shown  above,  and  from  the  fact  that  thousands  of  moths  are  seen  late  in  the 
fall,  and  a  small  number  early  in  the  spring,  it  appears  pretty  certain  that  Aletia 
hibernates  as  a  moth.  This  being  granted,  we  come  to  one  of  the  points  about  which 
scientific  men  have  had  many  disputes,  viz,  whether  the  moth  hibernates  in  the  cot- 
ton-growing regions  of  the  United  States,  or  whether  the  species  becomes  extinct  in 
our  country  each  year,  the  caterpillars  of  the  next  year  being  developed  from  eggs 
laid  by  moths  coming  from  within  the  tropics.  Not  being  in  the  cotton-belt  during 
the  winter,  I  was  unable  to  demonstrate  from  my  own  observation  which  of  these 
theories  is  the  true  one ;  but  I  am  inclined  to  believe  in  the  first-mentioned,  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons:  On  the  17th  of  May  I  located  myself  on  a  plantation  situated  in  Dal- 
las County,  Alabama,  on  the  Selma  and  Gulf  Railroad,  about  '23  miles  south  of  Selma. 
Here,  on  the  21st  of  the  same  month,  a  fully-grown  Aletia  larva  was  found,  which 
shortened  preparatory  to  pupation  that  night.  This  was  the  earliest  caterpillaB  seen 
on  that  plantation.  But  on  the  17th  of  May  a  full-grown  larva  was  found  on  the 
plantation  of  Col.  C.  T.  Lewis,  situated  nearly  west  of  Selma,  and  therefore  con- 
siderably further  north  than  my  locality.  Now,  if  the  moths  which  deposited  the  eggs 
from  which  these  larvae  were  hatched  came  from  some  southern  region,  as  the  Bahamas, 
we  would  expect  to  find  the  earliest  larvae  in  the  most  southern  sections  of  the 
cotton-belt,  neglecting  the  difference  in  temperature  which  would  tend  to  produce 
the  same  result ;  but  those  which  were  found  this  season  showed  the  reverse  to  be  the 
case,  making  such  migration  appear  improbable.  Moreover,  planters  assure  me  that 
on  warm  afternoons  in  winter  they  often  see  scores  of  these  moths  sunning  themselves 
beneath  the  eaves  of  negro  cabins  and  other  buildings.  A  number  of  planters  have 
told  me  of  finding  these  moths  within  the  hollows  and  beneath  the  loose  bark  of  dead 
trees  in  midwinter.  When  discovered  they  were  perfectly  torpid,  but  when  taken  into 
a  warm  room  they  soon  showed  signs  of  life,  and  in  a  short  time  were  able  to  fly  rapidly 
about  the  room.  One  man  told  me  that  last  January,  while  having  a  thick  bed  of 
fallen  leaves  raked  open,  he  found  a  large  number  of  these  moths  lying  torpid  among 


372  REPORT   UPON   COTTON  INSECTS. 

the  leaves.  Probably  it  -will  appear  at  first  sight  as  if  nothing  conld  be  more  conclu- 
sive than  this  testimony,  and  such  would  be  the  case  if  one  could  be  sure  that  the 
moths  found  were  always  Aletias.  But  while  I  have  the  greatest  confidence  in  the  tes- 
timony of  some  of  these  men,  I  should  hesitate  before  saying  that  anything  is  proved 
by  the  statements  of  men  not  accustomed  to  making  careful  scientific  observations. 

If  any  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  the  testimony  of  planters,  that  given  above,  com- 
ing from  many  sources,  will,  if  taken  in  connection  with  what  has  been  stated  con- 
cerning the  distribution  of  the  first  brood  of  larvae,  make  it  appear  extremely  probable 
that  Aletia  survives  the  winter  at  least  as  far  north  as  Dallas  County,  Alabama. 

It  is  commonly  believed  by  planters  that  the  caterpillars  are,  as  a  rule,  more  plenti- 
ful after  a  cold  than  after  a  mild  winter.  This  is  sometimes  brought  forward  as  evi- 
dence that  the  moths  do  not  hibernate  with  us,  for  severe  winters  ought  to  destroy 
more  of  them  than  mild  ones;  therefore,  if  they  really  survived  the  winter  in  this 
country,  there  would  be  more  larvae  after  a  mild  than  after  a  severe  season  ;  but  when 
this  is  considered  carefully  it  seems  to  confirm  the  theory  of  hibernation.  If  the  moths 
come  from  some  tropical  region  every  spring,  it  is  hard  to  see  what  connection  there 
would  be  between  the  severity  of  our  winter  and  their  greater  or  less  abundance  the 
next  spring  and  summer;  but  if  they  hibernate  in  our  cotton-belt,  this  is  readily  ex- 
plained; for  of  the  thousands  which  seek  hibernacula  in  the  fall,  some  will  certainly 
fail  to  secure  a  sufficient  protection  from  the  cold  and  will  freeze  to  death  ;  in  other 
words,  each  moth,  in  seeking  its  winter  quarters,  stands  a  certain  chance  of  not  find- 
ing a  sufficiently  warm  place.  In  a  very  cold  season  moths  will  perish  in  places  where 
they  would  be  safe  if  the  cold  were  less  intense,  but  those  which  have  secured  safe 
quarters  will  remain  dormant  there  till  the  warmth  of  spring  calls  them  forth  to  lay 
their  eggs :  they  take  the  chance  of  failure  but  once.  But  in  a  mild  winter  each  warm 
day  entices  many  from  their  retreats,  and  some  necessarily  fail  to  return  to  as  well 
protected  places  as  they  previously  occupied,  so  that  the  next  succeeding  cold  spell 
kills  them ;  they  take  this  chance  many  times  in  such  a  winter. 

As  the  winter  advances  the  number  of  moths  constantly  diminishes,  until  in  April, 
when  the  cotton  begins  to  appear  above  the  ground,  comparatively  few  are  left  to  lay 
their  eggs  upon  it;  and  the  general  testimony  of  planters  is  that  scarcely  any  of  this 
brood  are  seen  after  the  middle  of  April. 

From  the  eggs  laid  indiscriminately  on  the  leaves  of  young  cotton  by  these  moths, 
the  first  brood  of  larvae  hatch.  On  the  plantation  where  I  did  most  of  my  work,  only 
four  of  this  brood  were  found,  and  it  will  be  instructive  to  notice  where  they  were 
found.  May  21  a  full-grown  larva  was  found  <5n  some  small  cotton  which,  I  am  told, 
was  planted  April  30,  and  was  well  up  by  about  May  8.  This  cotton,  however,  imme- 
diately adjoined  some  which  was  planted  a  month  earlier,  and  it  is  probable  that  the 
caterpillar  was  hatched  on  the  older  cotton.  This  was  on  a  rather  damp  piece  of 
ground.  May  23  another  was  found  in  the  same  field,  but  in  a  dry,  sandy  place.  On 
the  same  day  another  was  found  on  some  cotton  of  the  earlier  planting,  on  a  dry  clay 
hilL  June  3  another  full-grown  larva  was  found,  this  time  on  cotton  growing  in  dry, 
sandy  soil  a  mile  from  the  place  where  the  ethers  were  found,  aud  at  a  considerably 
higher  altitude.  This  cotton  was  sown  about  April  1.  When  found  the  larva  was 
webbed  up,  but  had  not  yet  transformed  into  a  pupa.  Two  things  will  appear  from 
this :  1.  Individuals  of  this  first  brood  differed  in  age  by  nearly  two  weeks.  2.  They 
were  found  on  bottom  land,  clay,  and  sand,  in  a  swamp,  on  an  elevation  rising  from 
this,  and  on  a  ridge  considerably  removed  from  the  swamp. 

The  second  brood  of  larvae  was  first  noticed  by  me  on  the  llth  of  Jane,  when  I  cap- 
tured a  half-grown  larva  on  the  bottom  land  near  where  the  first  worm  was  found  the 
month  before.  I  had,  however,  learned  of  the  capture  of  partly-grown  worms  of  this 
brood  a  week  and  a  half  earlier,  in  the  canebrake  west  of  Selma  and  near  Montgom- 
ery, both  of  which  places,  it  will  be  noticed,  were  further  north  than  the  point  at 
which  I  was  located.  I  found  a  few  other  larvae  of  this  brood  at  intervals  up  to  the 
7th  of  July,  when  the  first  pupa  was  seen.  These  lArvae  were,  with  one  or  two  excep- 
tions, all  found  in  damp  bottom-land  near  where  I' found  the  first,  and  I  had  previously 
been  told  that  the  first  caterpillars  were  always  found  about  this  spot,  though  none 
were  commonly  seen  before  the  latter  part  of  June. 

July  14,  having  been  absent  from  this  plantation  for  a  week,  I  returned,  and  on  exam- 
ining the  bottom-laud  just  mentioned,  I  found  quite  a  number  of  caterpillars  belong- 
ing to  the  third  brood.  Some  were  very  small,  others  were  nearly  half  an  inch  long, 
and  one  or  two  which  were  half-grown  were  seen.  At  the  same  time  two  pupae  be- 
longing to  the  second  brood  were  seen.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  there  are  very  few 
larvae  of  the  first  and  second  broods,  this  is  tlifl  first  that  planters  usually  see  of  the 
caterpillar,  though  I  am  told  that  this  brood  sometimes  appears  a  couple  of  weeks  ear- 
lier; hence  they  call  this  the  "  first  crop."  Larvae  of  all  sizes,  with  some  pupae  and  a 
few  moths  belonging  to  this  brood,  were  found  up  to  about  August  1,  shortly  after 
•which  eggs  and  larvae  of  the  fourth  brood  were  seen.  With  few  exceptions  this  brood 
•was  confined  to  bottom  land. 

Like  the  preceding,  the  fourth  brood,  or  so-called  "second  crop,"  was  chiefly  con- 


APPENDIX  I EEPOETS  OF  OBSEEVEES.         373 

fined  to  this  bottom-land,  though  covering  a  much  larger  portion  of  it  than  the  other 
did,  and  being  sufficiently  numerous  to  have  eaten  the  foliage  from  ten  or  fifteen  acres 
of  cotton  if  it  had  not  been  poisoned.  Similarly  to  what  was  found  with  the  third 
brood,  this  consisted  of  larvae  of  all  ages,  from  the  little  one  newly  hatched  to  the 
full-grown  caterpillar  webbing  up  preparatory  to  pupation,  and  with  these  were  to  be 
found  pupae,  and  imagines  laying  their  eggs; -so  that  the  fifth  hrood  really  began  in 
small  numbers  at  least  a  week  earlier  than  the  date  presently  to  be  given.  This  dif- 
ference in  age  between  individuals  of  the  same  hrood  is  at  first  sight  a  little  puzzling, 
and  renders  it  very  difficult  to  separate  the  later  broods  by  any  sharp-drawn  line; 
but  when  we  consider  that  in  the  first  brood  I  found  a  variation  in  age  of  nearly  two 
weeks — the  whole  period  of  existence  of  a  larva  in  the  heat  of  summer — and  might 
have  found  even  a  greater  variation  had  I  obtained  more  specimens,  it  is  easily  seen 
that  their  descendants  must  show  the  same  difference  in  age. 

By  September  1,  the  larvae  of  the  fifth  brood,  ''third  crop"  or  "  army,"  were  appear- 
ing in  considerable  numbers,  and  when  I  left  the  field  two  weeks  later  they  were  still 
hatching  in  small  numbers ;  some  eggs  were  yet  being  laid,  while  many  larvae  were 
full  grown,  and  some  had  already  pupated.  Unlike  the  second,  third,  and  fourth 
broods,  but  agreeing  with  the  first,  these  larvae  were  not  confined  to  wet  places  in  the 
swamps,  but  were  almost  equally  abundant  in  the  swamps  and  on  the  ridges,  on  cotton 
growing  in  damp  ground  and  on  that  growing  in  dry  places. 

About  the  first  of  July,  in  a  conversation  with  me,  Professor  Eiley  said  that  he 
believed  the  common  idea  that  Aletia  does  better  in  wet  than  dry  weather  to  be  founded 
in  fact,  and  that  the  reason  for  it  was  that  in  wet  weather  Aletia  suffers  less  from  its 
insect  enemies  than  when  it  is  dry.  A  few  weeks  later,  when  noting  how  the  larvae 
were  attacked  by  ants  on  cotton  where  ants  were  very  plentiful,  I  became  convinced 
that  ants  were  among  the  most  important  of  their  natural  enemies.  About  the  same 
time  I  noticed  that  there  were  very  few  ants  on  the  cptton  where  most  of  the  larvae 
of  the  second  and  third  broods — the  latter  of  which  was  then  in  its  prime — were  found, 
the  ground  being  too  wet  for  their  nests,  while  wherever  the  ground  was  dry  there 
were  myriads  of  them.  From  this  I  drew  the  following  conclusions :  The  female  moths 
which  survive  the  winter  lay  theireggsou  cotton  growiug  on  ridge  or  in  swauip,  accord- 
ing as  they  hibernate  near  the  one  or  the  other.  Of  the  first  brood  of  larvae,  those  on 
dry  ground  infested  by  ants  are  mostly  killed  by  these  little  insects,  while  those  on 
ground  too  wet  for  the  ants  to  live  in  comfortably  stand  a  better  chance  for  escaping. 
Webbing  up  where  they  have  passed  their  larval  state,  these  appear  in  time  as  moths, 
and,  finding  a  sufficiency  of  food  in  the  nectar  secreted  by  the  plants  immediately 
about  them,  they  for  the  most  part  migrate  little,  but  deposit  their  eggs  close  to 
where  they  themselves  were  born  ;  and  this  explains  the  reason  that  the  majority  of  the 
second  brood  are  found  in  wet  places.  In  like  manner,  when  the  second  brood  appear 
as  moths,  they  will  feed  and  lay  their  eggs  near  where  they  have  passed  their  lives ; 
which  accounts  for  the  limitation  of  the  third  brood.  When  this  brood  appear  as 
moths,  being  mujh  more  numerous  than  either  of  the  earlier  broods,  they  necessarily 
spread  a  little  more,  this  scattering  being  in  a  more  or  less  perfect  circle  about  the 
spot  which  has  thus  far  contained  the  larger  number  of  caterpillars.  The  fourth  brood 
when  about  to  oviposit  is  generally  so  large  in  numbers  that  if  they  were  to  lay  their 
eggs  where  have  passed  their  lives  there  would  not  be  food  enough  for  their  offspring, 
especially  as  this  brood  is  usually  large  enough  to  defoliate  the  cotton  where  they  are 
found.  Therefore  they  scatter  far  and  wide,  laying  their  eggs  on  cotton  miles  from 
any  place  where  caterpillars  have  been  previously  noticed,  and  usually  their  offspring 
are  numerous  enough  to  eat  up  the  cotton  in  a  very  few  days  wherever  they  appear, 
and  to  show  no  decrease  from  the  attacks  of  the  ants  or  any  of  their  other  enemies. 

When  there  is  much  rain,  the  dry,  sandy  soil  becomes  saturated  with  water,  so  as  to 
be  almost  a  quicksand,  and  this,  of  course,  injures  the  nests  of  the  ants,  interfering  with 
their  visits  to  the  nectar  glands  of  the  cotton-plants.  I  have  noticed,  too,  that  in  rainy 
weather  comparatively  few  of  any  kind  visit  these  glands.  Rain,  then,  lessens  the 
liability  of  the  caterpillars  being  attacked  by  ants  and  wasps,  as  well  as  other  of 
their  enemies,  which  are  driven  to  seek  shelter,  and  this  accounts  sufficiently  well  for 
their  greater  numbers  in  wet  seasons. 

It  is  a  common  belief  that  the  caterpillars  never  eat  out  cotton  which  grows  in  the  shade 
of  trees  or  shrubbery.  Though  I  looked  at  many  shaded  places  in  cotton-fields,  about 
September  15,  when  most  of  the  cotton  had  been  stripped  of  its  leaves,  I  found  about 
as  many  places  where  the  shade  was  no  protection  as  where  it  was  protective.  Wher- 
ever their  proximity  prevents  the  worms  from  eating  cotton,  I  suspect  that  the  trees 
or  bushes  serve  as  lurking  places  for  insectivorous  birds. 

Among  other  traditions  which  I  have  in  mind  are  the  following:  Some  planters  be- 
lieve that  they  are  certain  to  find  caterpillars  on  their  cotton  wherever  they  see  lace- 
winged  flies.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  there  is  no  connection  between  the  two,  the 
lace-winged  flies  visiting  the  cotton  everywhere  in  search  of  cotton  aphides,  near  which 
they  lay  their  eggs,  their  larvae  being  the  well-known  aphis-lions. 

A  few  men  believe  that  where  the  larger  coffee-weed  grows  in  a  cotton-field  the 


374  EEPOET  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

caterpillars  do  not  molest  the  cotton.    Though  I  have  seen  a  good  deal  of  this  plant  in 
some  cotton,  I  never  noticed  that  it  saved  the  latter. 

It  is  sometimes  stated  that  rusted  cotton  is  never  eaten  by  Aletia.  The  term  rust  is 
applied  by  farmers  to  a  fungoid  disease  (rust  proper),  to  the  "  red  spider,"  and  to 
leaves  which  dry  up  from  disease  in  other  parts  of  the  plant,  so  that  it  is  hard  to  say 
what  is  meant  by  this  statement.  As  a  rule,  the  moths  certainly  do  lay  their  eggs  on 
healthy  cotton  in  a  vigorous  state  of  growth. 

NATURAL  ENEMIES. 

For  convenience  of  discussion,  the  natural  enemies  of  Aletia  may  be  divided  into  two 
classes  :  1,  those  which  are  not  parasitic  ;  2,  those  which  live  at  its'  expense  as  para- 
sites. Tho  first  of  these  may  be  subdivided  into  the  different  zoological  groups  of  which 
it  is  composed  ;  the  second,  so  far  as  my  observations  go,  consists  entirely  of  insects. 
This  arrangement  may  be  seen  by  an  inspection  of  the  following  table  ;  and  in  the  dis- 
cussion which  follows,  the  order  there  adopted  will  be  adhered  to  : 

1.  Mammals. 


I 

4.  Insects. 

2.  Parasitic.  <  Insects. 

The  only  mammals  that  I  have  seen  feeding  upon  Aletia  are  one  or  two  species  of 
bats,  which  are  usually  spoken  of  by  the  planters  as  "  leather-winged  "  bats,  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  the  night-hawk,  which  goes  by  the  appellation  of  "  bull-bat."  On 
the  25th  of  August,  having  occasion  to  study  the  moths  of  Aletia  while  feeding  on  the 
fruit  of  the  jujube-tree  (lUiamnus  zizyplius)  I  hung  a  lantern  on  a  branch  of  a  small 
tree  of  this  species,  where  hundreds  of  the  moths  were  collected.  While  making  the 
observations  for  which  I  had  gone  out,  I  noticed  that  a  number  of  bats,  of  several 
species,  were  flying  in  the  vicinity  of  the  tree,  under  which  they  repeatedly  darted, 
each  time  catching  a  moth,  which  was  immediately  carried  off.  Planters  tell  me  that 
in  seasons  when  the  caterpillars  are  very  numerous  and  the  cotton  is  eaten  up  before 
they  have  reached  their  full  size,  they  migrate  in  large  numbers,  so  as  to  fill  the  wagon- 
ruts  in  the  roads  and  collect  in  large  piles  in  the  fence-corners.  When  this  is  the  case, 
pigs,  and  even  dogs  and  cats,  are  said  to  feed  upon  them. 

But  two  species  of  wild  birds  were  seen  ealiug  the  larvae  of  Aletia  ;  these  were  the 
mocking-bird  (Mimus  polt/glotus)  and  the  indigo  bird,  or  blue-bird  as  it  is  called  in 
Alabama  (Cyanospiza  ciris).  Once  the  nest  of  some  sparrow  was  found  in  a  cotton- 
plant,  and  as  these  birds  feed  their  young  on  insect-larvae,  it  is  probable  that  they 
may  be  counted  among  the  enemies  of  the  cotton  caterpillar.  The  wild-turkey  (Me- 
leagris  gaUopavo)  is  not  uncommon  in  the  part  of  Alabama  where  my  observations  were 
made,  and  its  tracks  are  often  seen  in  the  cotton-fields.  Though  I  did  not  see  turkeys 
feed  upon  the  caterpillar,  I  saw  places  where  their  tracks  were  numerous,  and  where 
the  cotton  was  more  or  less  broken,  as  if  by  their  leaping  upward  after  Iho  larvae  on 
the  higher  branches  of  the  plant,  and  I  am  assured  by  planters  that  these  birds  have 
been  scon  to  feed  upon  the  worms.  Both  chickens  and  domesticated  turkeys  eat  the 
larvae  on  the  cotton  near  houses,  and  the  latter  birds  are  said  to  sometimes  seriously 
injure  the  cotton  in  jumping  after  the  caterpillars. 

Very  frequently  leaves  of  cotton  are  found  folded  and  webbed  by  Aletia,  while  the 
pupae  have  been  removed  through  clearly-cut  triangular  apertures,  evidently  made  by 
the  bill  of  some  bird.  I  am  told  that  the  rain-crow  (Cocci/gus  aincrir-ininn)  destroys, 
many  pupae  of  this  insect.  I  have  been  told  -that  the  night-hawk  or  bull-bat  (Chor-' 
deiles  vtrginianua)  has  been  seen  to  catch  the  moths  of  this  species  when  flying. 

Twice  spiders  were  seen  to  kill  Aletia.  One  day  in  July  I  sawa  small  j  limping-spider 
(No.  2,  July  23)  (Attus  nubilux)  leap  upon  a  half-grown  larva,  which  it  killed  and 
sucked  the  juices  from.  About  twilight  of  August  27,  while  watching  numbers  of 
moths  engaged  in  eating  rotting  peaches  on  the  ground,  I  heard  a  rather  loud  rustling 
among  them,  and  several  took  Sight  from  the  point  where  the  noise  was  heard.  Going 
to  the  spot,  I  found  that  a  large  ground-spider  had  captured  one  of  the  moths,  which 
was  beating  its  wings  in  futile  efforts  to  escape.  Owing  to  the  darkness,  the  spider 
was  allowed  to  escape,  so  that  I  did  not  determine  the  species.  In  Alabama  the  largo, 
green,  spiny  spider  (Oxyopvs  riridann)  is  abundant  on  cotton-plants,  and  it  is  not  im- 
probable that  it  may  sometimes  catch  Aletia  in  its  larvae  and  perfect  states. 

To  preserve  the  order  thus  far  followed,  it  will  be  necessary  to  separate  the  im  para- 
sitic insect  enemies  of  Aletia  into  those  which  destroy  the  egg,  those  which  destroy  the 
larva,  those  which  destroy  the  pupa,  and  those  whicli  destroy  the  moth  ;  though  this 
will,  in  a  few  cases,  necessitate  the  insertion  of  the  same  insect  in  two  or  more  of  these 
groups. 

I  have  seen  but  one  insect  destroying  the  egg  of  Aletia,  viz,  the  larva  of  one  of  the 


APPENDIX  I REPORTS  OF  OBSERVERS.         375 

lamia  convergers).  This  was  on  the  26th  of  August ;  the  larva  was 
searching  the  lower  surface  of  a  leaf,  apparently  for  aphides,  when  it  encountered  an 
Aletia  egg,  which  it  immediately  bit  with  its  mandibles  ;  but,  as  if  disliking  its  taste, 
it  left  the  egg  uneaten  and  passed  on.  Later  I  saw  this  same  larva  bite  another 
egg,  and  this,  too,  was  left  without  farther  disturbance,  but  of  course  both  eggs  were 
killed.  Though  many  hours  were  spent  in  looking  for  further  attacks  upou  the  eggs 
of  Aletia,  the  difficulties  necessarily  attendant  npon  such  observations  prevented  me 
from  seeing  any  more.  From  the  actions  and  known  proclivities  of  the  lady-birds 
known  as  Kippodamiaconverrjens,  H.  maculata,  Coccinella  mnnda,  and  Coccinclla  9  notata, 
all  of  which  are  found  in  abundance  on  cotton-plants,  and  of  Chilocorns  binilnerus,  one 
adult  of  which  was  seen  searching  the  leaves  of  the  cotton,  I  suspect  that  they  all 
destroy  these  eggs  more  or  less  commonly.  The  larvae  (aphis-lions)  of  the  lace-winged 
flies  are  also  very  plentiful  on  cotton,  where  they  prey  upon  aphides,  and  very  likely 
they  may  also  destroy  eggs  of  Aletia.  Similarly,  ants  of  quite  a  number  of  speciea 
frequent  the  cotton-plant,  whither  they  are  attracted  both  by  the  sweet  excretion  of 
aphides  and  by  the  nectar  copiously  secreted  by  the  foliar  and  involucral  glands  of 
the  plant ;  and,  though  I  never  saw  them  molest  the  eggs  of  Aletia,  I  believe  that  they 
do  so. 

Wasps  frequent  the  cotton-plant  in  considerable  numbers,  being  attracted,  like  the 
ants,  in  part  by  the  nectar  secreted  by  the  plant ;  and  there  is  much  reason  to  believe 
that  all  of  the  species  which  visit  the  plant  feed  more  or  less  commonly  on  the  cater- 
pillar or  larva  of  Aletia.  I  am  led  to  this  conclusion  by  the  following  observations: 
On  the  8th  of  August,  when  larvae  of  the  fourth  brood  of  Aletia  were  very  abundant 
in  the  swamp  cotton,  I  saw  a  large  red  and  yellow  wasp  (Polistes  i-cllicosa)  hunting 
for  them.  Carefully  walking  round  the  holes  eaten  through  the  leaves  by  the  cater- 
pillars, she  explored  their  borders  with  her  antennae,  as  if  feeling  for  the  larvae; 
and  each  time  that  she  found  one  in  this  way  she  quickly  sprang  after  it,  but  at  the 
same  instant  the  larva  threw  itself  from  the  leaf,  so  that  while  I  was  watching  her  I 
saw  no  less  than  eight  escape,  the  ninth  being  caught  and  eaten.  Occasionally  she 
would  stop  hunting  long  enough  to  sip  a  little  nectar  from  the  foliar  glands  of  the 
plant,  and  then  the  chase  was  resumed.  I  was  very  much  surprised  to  see  that  she 
relied  entirely  on  the  tactile  sense  of  her  antennae  for  finding  her  prey.  Though 
possessing  well-developed  ocelli  aud  compound  eyes,  she  seemed  to  make  little  use  of 
them,  and  repeatedly  I  saw  her  alight  on  a  leaf  close  to  a  caterpillar  without  pa.ying 
any  attention  to  him  till  she  touched  him  with  her  antennae,  when,  as  before  stated, 
she  would  instantly  spring  after  it.  Observations  of  this  sort  were  made  several 
times  on  this  wasp.  Another  rather  large  brown  wasp  was  also  seen  to  catch  larval 
Aletias,  as  also  were  a  yeilow-jacket  hornet  (  Vcspa  Carolina)  and  a  common  mud-dauber 
(Pelopaeus  caerulcus),  and  they  all  alternated  hunting  for  caterpillars  with  feeding  on 
nectar.  Both  species  of  Pollutes  were  several  times  seen  flying  about  with  dead  cater- 
pillars, having  previously  reduced  them  to  a  pulpy  mass  with  their  mandibles.  They 
were  probably  looking  for  some  quiet  place  in  which  to  eat  them. 

From,  their  great  numbers  and  indefatigable  industry,  ants  are  probably  among  the 
most  important  of  the  enemies  of  the  cotton  caterpillar.  Individuals  of  many  species 
swarm  everywhere  on  the  cotton-plants,  to  which  they  are  attracted  night  and  day  by 
Aphides  and  nectar.  Ou  many  cotton-leaves  there  are  places  where  some  larva  has 
eaten  the  parenchyma  of  the  lower  surface,  but  the  most  careful  search  fails  to  discover 
the  larea.  Though  not  invariably  so,  these  places  are  often  eaten  by  very  young  larvae 
of  Aletia,  and  as  these  are  not  to  be  found,  it  looks  as  though  they  had  been  removed  by 
some  enemy,  probably  ants,  though  I  have  never  seen  ants  attack  very  small  caterpil- 
lars. In  July  a  number  of  caterpillars  were  collected  in  the  bottom-land  to  which  they 
were  principally  confined  at  that  time,  and  placed  on  cotton  growing  in  dry,  sandy 
soil,  care  being  taken  to  see  that  there  were  no  ants  on  this  cotton  when  the  larvaj 
were  placed  on  it,  for  my  insects  in  breeding-jars  in  the  house  had  suffered  so  much 
from  the  depredations  of  ants  that  I  was  always  afraid  of  their  attacking  larvae  that  I 
wanted  to  study  in  the  field ;  and  these  particular  caterpillars  had  been  removed  to 
the  cotton  indicated  because  I  wished  to  make  observations  on  their  habits,  and  wanted 
them  as  near  the  house  as  might  be,  while  at  that  time  the  only  larvae  to  be  found  in 
numbers  were  about  a  mile  from  where  I  was  living.  Within  two  hours  of  the  time  of 
placing  them  on  this  cotton,  each  of  these  larvae  was  found  by  several  ants,  and 
these  soon  collected  numbers  of  their  fellows,  whose  combined  attack  so  worried  the 
larvae  that  they  threw  themselves  from  the  plants  and  were  soon  killed  and  carried  off 
by  their  small  but  persistent  enemies.  On  several  other  occasions  partly-grown  cater- 
pillars were  killed  and  carried  off  in  this  way  by  this  species  and  a  red  ant,  yet  I  never 
saw  ants  attack  them  on  the  plant,  excepting  when  I  had  thus  placed  them  on  ridge- 
cotton  for  purposes  of  study  ;  but  when  creeping  over  the  ground,  as  they  do  after 
eating  up  the  foliage  of  the  plant  on  which  they  were  born,  if  not  full-grown,  hundreds 
of  caterpillars  were  attacked  by  these  ants  and  killed.  I  have  never  seen  more  than 
one  species  of  ant  attacking  any  individual  caterpillar,  either  on  the  plant  or  on  the 
ground. 

No  lepidopterons  enemies  of  Aletia  larvae  were  observed  by  myself,  but  Dr.  Lockwood, 


376  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

of  Carlowville,  Ala.,  says  that  a  number  of  years  ago  he  saw  a  large  green  larva  de- 
vouring numbers  of  cotton  caterpillars.  From  what  we  know  of  the  habits  of  the  boll- 
worm  (Hcliothis  armigera),  it  seems  not  at  all  unlikely  that  these  larvae  may  have  be- 
longed to  that  species. 

Several  bugs  (Ilemiptera)  were  seen  to  kill  the  cotton-worm.  Early  in  the  season 
great  numbers  of  a  large,  ill-smelling  bug  with  dilated  hind  legs  (Acanihocephala  fcmo- 
rata)  were  seen  in  the  weeds  and  shrubbery  about  the  borders  of  cotton-tields,  being 
very  noticeable  on  account  of  its  buzzing  flight.  After  Aletia  appeared  in  numbers, 
fewer  of  these  bugs  were  seen,  but  they  were  several  times  seen  to  catch  caterpillars 
and  suck  the  juices  of  their  bodies.  At  different  times  through  the  summer,  another 
bug  (Anna  spinosa)  was  seen  to  kill  these  larvae,  as  also  was  another  (Sinea  multi- 
tyiuosa)  which  occurs  in  considerable  numbers  about  cotton. 

These  are  all  of  the  insects  that  I  found  preying  upon  the  cotton  caterpillar,  or  that 
I  have  reason,  from  my  own  observations,  to  think  prey  upon  it ;  but  my  friend  Mr. 
John  Wilkins,  of  Selma,  Ala.,  tells  me  that  in  the  canebrake  he  has  once  seen  the  com- 
mon green  mantis  (Mantis  Carolina)  leap  upon  these  larvae  on  plants  near  the  borders 
of  cotton-fields,  but  these  insects  do  not  venture  far  from  the  bushes  around  the  field, 

Owing  to  its  tough  integument,  the  pupa  of  Aletia  seems  to  be  freer  from  insect  at- 
tack than  the  larva  is,  yet  even  its  hard  skin  does  not  always  save  it.  About  the  mid- 
dle of  August  I  first  noticed  what  appeared  to  be  an  anomalous  preparation  for  pupa- 
tion in  the  boll-worm  (Heliothis  armigera),  for  I  found  several  full-grown  larvae  of  this 
species  with  leaves  closely  webbed  around  them,  precisely  as  Aletia  webs  up  before 
changing  to  a  pupa.  An  examination  of  one  of  these  leaves,  however,  showed  me  that 
the  boll  worms  had  not  webbed  them  about  themselves,  but  had  insinuated  themselves 
into  leaves  folded  and  preoccupied  by  Aletia,  the  latter  having  already  passed  into  the 
pupa  state ;  and  they  had  done  this  for  the  express  purpose  of  feeding  on  these  pupae. 
Many  cases  of  this  sort  were  seen. 

In  the  latter  part  of  July  several  Aletias,  just  about  to  pupate,  were  taken  from  the 
swamp  where  they  were  found,  and  with  leaves  still  webbed  about  them  they  were 
transferred  to  cotton  on  dry  soil  near  the  house,  where  they  were  tied  by  their  leaves 
to  the  petioles  of  this  cotton,  my  object  in  placing  them  there  being  to  determine  the 
length  of  the  pupa  state.  The  same  day  they  shed  their  last  larva  skins,  and  this  left 
them  in  an  almost  defenseless  condition  till  the  pupa  skin  should  become  firm  and 
tough.  About  twenty-four  hours  after  this  moult  they  were  again  visited,  and  were 
found  covered  with  red  ants,  which  had  killed  and  partly  eaten  them  all,  though  they 
were  on  different  plants,  and  care  was  taken  to  see  that  there  were  no  ants  on  the  cotton 
when  the  larvae  were  placed  there. 

Many  specimens  of  a  red  bug  of  all  ages  have  been  seen  about  the  pupae  of  Aletia, 
and  they  were  often  found  within  the  loose  cocoons  of  these  pupae  ;  and,  though  they 
were  not  seen  to  molest  them,  their  presence  looks  suspicious. 

But  one  insect  was  found  killing  the  imago  or  moth  of  Aletia,  viz,  a  two-winged  fly 
(Asilus  sericcus),  which  is  very  abundant  about  cotton-tields  and  was  several  times  seen 
to  catch  the  moths  on  the  wing,  afterwards  eating  them. 

Early  in  September,  while  watching  these  moths  as  they  fed  on  rotting  figs,  I  saw 
many  white-faced  hornets  (  Vcspa  tnaculata)  about  the  fig  trees.  One  of  these  hornets 
was  seen  to  catch  a  two-winged  fly  nearly  as  large  as  itself.  After  killing  it,  the  hor- 
net proceeded  to  deprive  the  fly  of  its  legs  and  wings,  which  were  allowed  to  fall  to 
the  ground.  The  fly  was  then  carried  away.  Under  these  same  trees  I  found  the 
wings  of  Aletia  moths,  and  it  looks  from  this  as  though  these  moths  are  sometimes 
killed  by  the  hornet ;  still,  I  never  saw  a  hornet  in  the  act  of  killing  a  moth,  or  with 
the  dead  body  of  one,  and  am  aware  that  their  usual  food  is  flies. 

By  no  means  the  least  important  enemies  of  any  insect  are  its  parasites,  and  these 
deserve  careful  attention  in  the  present  case.  But  to  properly  breed  large  numbers  of 
pupae  for  their  parasites  facilities  are  needed  which  could  not  well  be  obtained  on  a 
plantation,  so  that  the  determination  of  the  percentage  of  parasitized  pupae  and 
the.  parasitic  species  was  left  to  the  department,  a  sufficient  number  of  pupae  for  that 
purpose  being  forwarded  to  Washington.  For  some  few  observations  made  on  the  eggs 
of  two  parasites — probably  dipterous — I  would  refer  to  my  letters  of  July  24  and  Au- 
gust 5.  Two  or  three  species  of  ichneumon  flies  were  seen  about  cotton-plants,  but  as 
they  were  all  watched  to  see  if  they  would  oviposit  in  Aletia,  none  were  captured, 
and  they  were,  therefore,  not  identified.  None  of  them  were  seen  to  molest  the  cater- 
pillar. 

After  caterpillars  had  died  from  eating  some  of  the  poisons  used  for  their  destruc- 
tion, the  following  animals  were  seen  to  eat  them  :  1.  Chickens,  and  these  sometimes 
eat  so  many  as  to  die  from  the  effects  of  the  poison.  2.  Ants  of  several  species.  Though 
I  have  never  seen  any  of  these  little  insects  killed  by  being  poisoned  in  this  way,  I 
think  that  this  is  often  the  case,  for  I  have  seen  many  of  them  eating  the  dead  cater- 
pillars. 13.  Aphis-lions  were  several  times  found  sucking  the  juices  of  caterpillars  that 
had  died  of  poison. 

(The  whole  section  of  Mr.  Trelease's  report  referring  to  remedies  for  the  cotton- worm 
was  incorporated  bodily  into  Chapter  VII  of  Part  I.— J.  H.  C. 


APPENDIX    I REPORTS    OF    OBSERVERS.  377 

HELIOTHIS. 

NATURAL    HISTORY. 

Unlike  the  cotton  caterpillar,  the  boll-worm  is  not  confined  to  one  species  of  plant 
for  its  food,  but  is  omnivorous,  feeding  for  the  most  part  on  living  vegetable  substances, 
but  occasionally  becoming  carnivorous  when  partly  grown.  From  this  it  results  that 
its  eggs  are  not  deposited  exclusively  on  one  species  of  plant;  nor,  when  laid  on  the 
cotton-plant,  are  they  confined  chiefly  to  one  part  of  it,  as  was  found  to  be  the  case 
with  those  of  Aletia.  On  the  contrary,  I  have  found  them  laid  singly  ou  the  outside 
of  the  calyx  and  on  the  leaf  petioles  of  the  garden  pea,  on  the  peduncles  and  leaves 
of  the  cow-pea,  on  the  upper  surface  of  leaves  of  Indian  corn,  near  their  divergence 
from  the  stem,  and  on  the  outer  surface  of  the  husk  near  the  tips  of  young  roasting- 
ears,  and  on  the  petioles  and  both  surfaces  of  the  leaves  of  the  cotton-plant,  as  well 
as  on  the  outer  surface  of  the  bracts  composing  the  involucre  which  surrounds  the 
flowers  of  this  species,  and  which,  is  known  to  farmers  as  the  square.  Not  having 
allowed  moths  of  this  species  to  lay  in  confinement,  nor  having  marked  any  eggs  im- 
mediately after  their  disposition  on  cotton  in  the  field,  I  cannot  say  how  long  a  time 
is  required  for  incubation. 

Very  soon  after  its  exclusion  the  young  larva  begins  to  feed  upon  the  substance  of 
the  leaf  or  bract,  or  other  organ  on 'which  it  finds  itself,  and  when  this  chances  to  be 
a  leaf  or  bract  it  leaves  the  epidermis  on  the  other  side  for  some  time.  During  the 
first  half  day  or  day  of  its  existence  it  feeds  in  this  way,  forming  small,  irregular, 
transparent  spots  in  the  blade  of  the  leaf  or  in  the  bract,  after  which  it  pierces  a 
hole — usually  more  rounded  than  that  first  formed  by  Aletia — through  the  organ.  The 
age  at  which  this  is  done  appears  from  my  observations  to  be  earlier  than  that  at  which 
the  cotton  caterpillar  pierces  the  leaf,  but  I  find  that  it  differs  greatly  with  different 
individuals,  some  piercing  the  leaf  when  less  than  ten  hours  old,  some  not  until  they 
are  about  tAvo  days  old.  After  this,  if  it  does  not  find  itself  close  to  a  flower-bud,  im- 
mature fruit,  or  some  other  object  suitable  for  its  food,  the  larva  moves  about  in  search 
of  this  food,  finding  which  it  shortly  goes  to  eating.  Whatever  may  be  its  food,  this 
worm,  according  to  my  observations,  always  forms  regular,  round  openings  in  its  ex- 
terior for  its  own  entrance  or  exit,  and  these  vary  in  size  with  the  size  of  the  larva, 
being  just  large  enough  to  allow  the  animal's  body  to  pass  with  ease.  Another  pecu- 
liarity of  this  larva  is  its  wandering  character,  especially  earlier  in  the  season,  when 
feeding  on  the  flower  buds  or  forms  of  cotton,  for,  these  being  small,  the  contents  of 
each  is  soon  eaten  by  the  worm,  which  necessarily  moves  on  in  search  of  more  food. 

My  attention  having  been  given  more  to  Aletia  than  to  this  species,  especially  in 
the  early  part  of  the  season,  I  find  that  the  notes  from  which  I  am  to  judge  of  the 
number  of  broods  of  the  boll-worm  are  very  incomplete.  But  from  such  notes  as  I 
have  it  appears  that  there  were  four  broods,  of  which  only  the  last  did  much  injury 
to  cotton,  most  of  the  earlier  broods  feeding  upon  the  Indian  corn. 

When,  about  the  middle  of  May,  I  began  studying  this  insect,  I  found  what  I  sup- 
pose to  have  been  its  first  brood  of  larvae  feeding  upon  the  tender  leaves  which  termi- 
nate the  young  stalks  of  maize ;  it  is  then  sometimes  called  the  "  terminal-bud  worm  " 
of  the  corn.  It  is  rarely  that  more  than  one  larva  is  found  on  any  plant.  Plants 
attacked  by  these  bud-worms  are  easily  singled  out  as  one  walks  through  the  field ; 
for  the  leaves  are  pierced  by  many  small  holes,  much  as  though  a  light  charge  of  bird- 
shot  had  been  fired  through  the  plant.  When  such  a  stalk  is  found,  if  the  leaves,  be- 
ginning with  the  outermost,  are  carefully  stripped  off  nearly  to  the  bases  of  their 
sheaths,  a  quantity  of  excrement  will  be  found  between  them,  increasing  as  we  go  in- 
ward ;  and  the  pale  green  larva  which  causes  it  will  be  found  either  within  the  sheath 
of  a  leaf  or  in  a  cavity  that  it  has  eaten  in  the  closely-rolled  terminal  leaves,  which, 
sooner  or  later,  it  always  reaches.  When  it  has  attained  its  full  size,  the  larva  pierces 
the  leaves  about  it  with  a  round  hole,  through  which  it  makes  its  exit,  going  into  the 
ground  for  pupation.  It  is  my  belief  that  this  brood  went  into  the  ground  late  in 
May,  being  followed  by  another  brood  which  pupated  about  the  end  of  June ;  but  this 
is  in  great  part  based  on  memory. 

Early  in  July,  when  roasting-ears  were  forming  on  the  corn,  another  brood,  the  so- 
called  ear-worm  or  tassel-worm,  was  found  feeding  upon  the  silk  and  tender  grain 
near  the  end  of  the  ears.  While  for  the  most  part  the  preceding  broods  varied  little 
in  color,  being  chiefly  of  a  pale  green,  this  brood  consisted  of  larvae  of  various  shades 
of  green,  pink,  and  rose.  When  fully  grown — which  occurred  in  the  latter  part  of 
July — each  of  these  bored  a  round  hole  through  the  husk  of  the  ear,  escaping  through 
this  and  falling  to  the  ground  to  pupate. 

The  next  brood,  appearing  not  far  from  the  1st  of  August,  when  the  ears  of  corn 
were  beginning  to  harden  and  when  cotton  forms  and  bolls  were  very  plentiful,  was 
chiefly  confined  to  the  latter.  Before  this  time,  a  few  larvae  of  this  species  had  been 
found  on  cotton ;  thus,  on  May  30, 1  found  a  partly  grown  boll- worm  eating  the  leaves  of 
a  cotton-plant  ten  or  fifteen  rods  from  any  corn,  and  at  this  time  there  were  very  few 


378  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

forms  on  the  cotton,  and  these  were  very  small,  so  that  the  individual  in  question  had 
probably  fed  entirely  on  the  leaves.  On  the  llth  of  June,  the  first  worm  was  found 
eating  the  young  flower  buds  or  forms,  and  a  few  others  were  found  from  that  time 
onward  ;  but  by  far  the  most  of  these  earlier  larvae  were  confined  to  the  corn.  This 
brood,  then,  which  I  suppose  to  have  been  the  fourth,  was  in  its  prime  about  the  mid- 
dle of  August,  doing  much  damage  to  the  forming  cotton. 

Meantime  larvae  of  each  of  these  broods  were  found  feeding,  in  greater  or  less  num- 
bers, on  the  green  fruit  of  the  garden-pea,  the  cow-pea,  the  tomato,  and  the  wild 
Erythrina  herbacea,  leguminous  plant  related  to  the  first  two  named.  When  eating  the 
garden-pea,  the  larva  bores  a  hole  through  the  papery  pod  for  its  entrance,  then  eats 
the  entire  contents  of  the  pod  before  leaving  it  for  another.  But  in  eating  cow-peas, 
which  are  contained  in  a  more  fleshy  pod  and  separated  by  fleshy  partitions,  it  often 
bores  into  one  chamber  of  the  pod,  eats  the  seed  in  it,  and  then,  instead  of  cutting 
through  the  partition  to  reach  the  next,  bores  another  hole  from  the  outside.  A  sim- 
ilar observation  was  made  concerning  Erytlirina.  Nor  does  the  boll-worm  content 
itself  with  this  diet.  Riley  and  Glover  have  pointed  out  other  plants  on  which  it 
feeds,  and  not  infrequently  large  individuals  were  seen  by  me  eating  the  pupae  of  the 
cotton  caterpillar  and  even  smaller  larvae  of  their  own  species;  while,  as  stated  under 
the  head  of  the  natural  enemies  of  Aletia,  it  is  probable  that  they  sometimes  kill  the 
larvae  of  that  species. 

When  a  flower-bud  or  young  boll  of  cotton  is  punctured  by  the  boll- worm  the  in- 
volucre or  "square"  which  surrounds  its  base  spreads  open  or  "  flares,"  and  sooner 
or  later  the  injured  fruit  falls  to  the  ground.  Even  before  the  cotton  commenced  to 
bloom  many  of  these  blasted  squares  were  to  be  seen  on  the  ground,  and  in  every  case 
where  the  involucre  had  flared  open  I  found  the  form  punctured,  though  most  ofthese 
punctures  early  in  the  season  were  very  small,  and  had  no  excrement  in  the  square 
beneath  them,  thus  differing  from  punctures  formed  by  the  boll-worm.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  these  very  small  perforations  are  made  by  hemipterous  insects,  and  I 
strongly  suspect  two  bugs  very  common  on  the  cotton-plant,  which  have  the  habit  of 
running  round  the  stalk  as  you  try  to  obtain  a  view  of  them,  much  as  squirrels  do 
under  gtrnilar  circumstances,  so  that  they  always  keep  the  stem  interposed  between 
themselves  and  an  observer.  This  shyness  prevented  me  from  verifying  my  suspi- 
cions, though  I  watched  the  insects  a  great  many  times.  On  the  other  hand,  many 
blasted  squares  result  from  climatic  injuries,  and  these  may  be  distinguished  from 
those  caused  by  insects,  since  the  square  retains  its  normal  position  and  form. 

When  full  grown  the  boll- worm  enters  the  ground,  forms  a  slight  silken  net,  serv- 
ing, in  connection  with  the  loose  earth  bound  together  by  it,  as  a  cocoon,  in  which  the 
larva  shortens  and  becomes  fusiform,  its  colors  fading,  preparatory  to  pupation. 

The  pupae  of  this  species  are  plowed  up  in  numbers,  especially  early  in  the  spring, 
and  many  planters  mistake  them  for  those  of  Aletia;  but,  having  no  use  for  the  anal 
hooks  of  the  latter,  the  posterior  end  of  their  body  is  terminated  by  two  slender 
points,  often  so  closely  appressed  as  to  look  to  the  naked  eye  like  a  single  spine.  This 
character  readily  distinguishes  them  from  Aletia,  as  does  their  greater  size  and  usually 
lighter  color. 

The  moths  of  this  species,  like  those  of  Aletia,  feed  upon  the  nectar  secreted  by  the 
glands  of  the  cotton-plant,  cow-pea,  greater  cottee  weed,  and  probably  other  plants, 
though  I  have  never  seen  them  feeding  on  others  than  those  named,  nor  on  fruits, 
which  are  also  probably  attractive  to  them.  When  feeding  on  nectar  these  moths 
vibrate  their  antennae  rapidly,  and,  indeed,  behave  in  all  respects  like  Aletia,  except- 
ing that  they  hold  their  wings  slightly  spread  and  inclined  upward,  instead  of  folding 
them  close  to  their  backs  as  the  latter  species  does.  Rarely,  too,  like  the  other  species, 
they  hover  before  the  gland,  steadying  themselves  by  their  fore  legs.  1  did  not  find 
that  these  moths  showed  as  marked  an  appreciation  as  Aletia  does,  nor  were  they  any 
more  abundantly  attracted  to  my  lights  or  baits. 

Like  the  cotton  caterpillar,  the  boll-worm  is  more  abundant  in  wet  than  in  dry 
places — at  least  such  was  my  experience — and  it  is  also  said  to  do  better  in  wet  than 
in  dry  seasons.  This  ia  readily  explained  by  the  hostility  of  ants,  which  are  more 
abundant  in  dry  than  in  wet  places,  and  in  fair  than  in  rainy  seasons.  Early  in  June 
several  half-grown  "  bud-worms "  were  collected  ou  Indian  corn  and  transferred  to 
cotton-plants  with  a  view  to  watching  their  actions.  Care  was  taken  to  place  them 
on  plants  on  which  there  were  no  ants.  Seating  myself  beside  them,  I  awaited  de- 
velopments. At  first  they  evinced  no  desire  to  do  more  than  conceal  themselves  be- 
neath the  leaves  from  the  glare  of  the  sun.  But  it  was  not  long  before  a  stray  ant 
appeared  on  the  plant,  and,  finding  a  larva,  proceeded  to  run  round  and  round  it, 
biting  it  whenever  it  could.  Soon,  however,  finding  that  unaided  it  could  do  little, 
the  ant  left  the  plant,  and,  after  watching  it  a  short  time,  I  lost  sight  of  it ;  but  in  a 
few  minutes  it  returned,  accompanied  by  several  others  of  the  same  species.  In  a  lit- 
tle while  the  worm  was  so  worried  that  it  fell  from  the  plant,  and  was  soon  killed  and 
carried  off  by  its  tormentors,  which  followed  it  to  the  ground.  Several  times  I  saw 
this  repeated,  the  boll-worms  being  killed  in  each  case  within  an  hour  from  the  time 


APPENDIX  I REPORTS  OF  OBSERVERS.         379 

when  they  were  placed  on  the  cotton.  The  black  ants  were  also  seen  to  kill  these 
larvae  011  several  occasions,  and  once  or  twice,  when  the  worms  had  not  been  inter- 
fered with  by  me,  I  was  able  to  note  but  one  other  enemy  to  this  larvae,  namely, 
the  boll- worm  itself ;  for  on  several  occasions,  on  the  plant  and  undisturbed,  I  saw 
large  boll-worms  catch  smaller  ones,  which  they  devoured  hoof  and  hide,  or  some- 
times only  bruised  with  their  mandibles  so  that'  they  could  extract  the  juices  from 
their  bodies,  the  refuse  being  dropped.  In  trying  to  breed  this  species,  I  found  that 
it  would  never  do  to  place  more  than  one  larvae  in  a  breeding  jar,  else  the  smaller 
ones  were  certain  to  be  eaten  by  the  larger. 

As  previously  stated,  these  larvae  vary  greatly  in  color,  but  this  variation  has  no 
connection  with  the  plant  on  which  they  feed,  so  far  as  I  could  see  ;  for  green  larvae 
were  found  on  all  of  their  food-plants,  and  deep-pink  larvae  were  found  on  the  cotton- 
plant  and  on  the  roasting-ears  of  corn.  Originally,  this  color  variation  may  have  been 
produced  by  its  being  protective  to  one  individual  to  be  pale  green  because  it  fed  on 
the  pale-green  parts  of  some  plant ;  while  another,  feeding  on  deep-green  organs, 
would  be  protected  by  being  of  a  dark-green  color  ;  and  another,  feeding  on  a  rose- 
colored  organ — and  the  silk  of  some  ears  of  corn  as  well  as  certain  shades  of  the  later 
stages  of  a  cotton-flower,  in  which  these  larvae  are  not  infrequently  found,  are  well 
represented — would  be  protected  by  being  of  a  rose-color.  It  is  evident,  however,  that 
such  color  variation  to  be  protective  must  be  associated  with  an  instinct  leading  the 
parent  moths  to  lay  such  eggs  as  should  produce  light-green  larvae  on  light-green 
plant  organs  ;  such  as  should  produce  dark-green  larvae,  on  dark-green  organs,  and 
such  as  should  produce  pink  larvae,  on  pink  organs.  Or,  if  this  were  not  the  case, 
larvae  hatched  on  organs  of  different  colors  must  have  the  power  to  become,  them- 
selves, colored  like  these  organs.  Such  cases  are  known  to  occur,  but  this  is  not  the 
case  with  Jldiothia,  as  has  been  already  stated ;  though  it  is  possible  that  at  one  time 
these  color  variations  may  have  been  accompanied  by  suitable  instincts  in  the  moths, 
these  instincts  having  been  lost  at  a  later  time. 

REMEDIES. 

Of  the  means  of  destroying  the  boll-worm  or  the  moth,  which  is  its  perfect  form,  I 
can  say  but  little.  Its  natural  enemies,  whatever  they  may  be,  should  be  protected ; 
and,  like  Aletia,  this  species  may  possibly  be  destroyed  some  day  by  some  parasitic  fun- 
gus, which  may  be  utilized  for  this  purpose.  The  remarks  made  about  the  use  of  poi- 
soned sweets  and  fires  for  destroying  the  moths  of  Aletia  will  apply  equally  well  to  the 
imagines  of  this  species. 

Since  the  earlier  broods  of  larvae  are  found  on  the  maize  or  Indian  corn,  first  in  the 
stalk,  later  in  the  ears  ;  and  since  the  tendency  of  the  species  to  multiply  in  geometri- 
cal progression  makes  it  desirable  to  destroy  the  early  broods  if  possible,  I  would  sug- 
gest hand-picking  of  these  earlier  broods  as  the  best  way  known  to  me  of  dealing  with 
the  pest.  As  was  stated  when  speaking  of  the  natural  history  of  Heliotliis,  if  one  of 
these  larvae  has  taken  up  its  abode  in  a  stalk  of  corn  the  fact  can  be  detected  by  a 
very  superficial  examination,  owing  to  the  holes  found  in  the  leaves.  Let,  then,  each 
plow-hand  be  instructed,  when  cultivating  the  corn,  to  stop  whenever  he  finds  such  a 
stalk,  and  catch  and  kill  the  worm,  even  though  it  should  occasionally  be  necessary  to 
destroy  the  plant  in  doing  this,  for  the  hill  may  be  replanted,  and  the  larva  thus 
killed  might,  if  suffered  to  live,  become  in  a  few  generations  the  parent  of  hundreds 
of  boll-worms.  Later,  after  the  corn  is  "laid  by"  and  has  begun  to  fruit,  boys  may  be 
sent  through  the  fields  to  kill  the  "tassel- worms,"  the  presence  of  which  may  be  detect- 
ed by  the  excrement  at  the  end  of  the  ear  or  by  the  silk  being  eaten  away.  To  catch 
these,  it  will  be  necessary  only  to  open  the  husk  for  a  short  distance  back  from  the  end 
of  the  ear,  and  from  the  ease  of  discovering  affected  ears  the  expense  will  not  be  great. 
It  is  objected  to  this,  that  ears  so  opened  are  exposed  to  the  weather  and  the  attacks 
of  birds.  Though  it  must  be  admitted  that  this  is  true  up  to  a  certain  point,  the  de- 
struction of  all  ears  so  interfered  with  does  not  follow,  and  the  great  lessening  of  the 
next  crop  of  boll- worms  will,  I  am  certain,  more  than  pay  for  what  corn  is  sacrificed. 

After  the  species  has  taken  up  its  abode  in  the  young  bolls  of  cotton,  hand-picking 
is  the  only  remedy  that  I  know  of,  and,  being  far  more  expensive  than  with  the  earlier 
broods,  this  does  not  seem  practicable.  When  the  cotton  is  poisoned  to  destroy  the 
caterpillar,  some  of  the  young  boll-worms,  feeding  on  leaves  or  bracts,  are  poisoned, 
and  I  have  seen  a  few  large  ones  destroyed  in  a  similar  manner;  but  from  the  fact 
that  they  feed  for  the  most  part  on  the  contents  of  the  boll,  making  only  a  round  hole 
through  its  exterior,  poison  cannot  be  well  used  in  dealing  with  them. 

Plow-hauds  should  be  instructed  to  destroy  every  pupa  plowed  out  of  the  ground,  as 
in  this  way  many  belonging  to  this  species  will  be  killed. 

In  closing,  I  have  to  express  my  gratitude  for  the  many  aids  and  kind  encourage- 
ments which  I  received  from  George  O.  Baker,  Col.  N.  H.  R.  Dawson  and  his  man- 
ager, Mr.  J.  P.  Melton,  Capt.  R.  M.  Nelson,  Capt.  N.  D.  Cross,  and  many  of  the  other 
planters  about  Selma,  Ala. 


II. 


ANSWERS  TO  CIRCULAR. 

The  following  answers  to  the  circular  letter  printed  in  fall  in  the  in- 
troduction to  this  report  are  arranged  as  follows :  First,  according  to  the 
sequence  of  the  questions ;  second,  alphabetically,  according  to  States. 
The  name  of  each  correspondent  and  of  the  county  from  which  lie  wrote 
is  given ;  the  full  addresses  of  correspondents  may  be  found  by  referring 
to  the  list  given  in  Appendix  III. 

PAST  HISTORY  OF  THE  COTTON- WORM. 

QUESTION  1. — Give,  so  far  as  you  can  from  trustworthy  records,  the  earliest  year  in  which 
cotton  was  grown  in  your  State,  county,  or  locality. 

ALABAMA. 

Cotton  was  grown  as  early  as  1825  in  this  county. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

Some  few  settlements  in  this  county',  Bullock,  then  Macou  County,  in  1636,  but  not 
generally  settled  until  1840  to  1842.— [J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

I  think  about  1817  or  1818.— [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Cotton  was  probably  grown  in  the  State  when  it  was  first  settled,  1818,  or  earlier. 
This  part  of  the  State  was  settled  as  early  as  1817.— [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowudes. 

The  growth  of  cotton  was  on  a  limited  area  as  early  as  1818  in  this  locality  ;  by  1825 
and  1828  it  became  a  general  crop. — [Robert  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

First  grown  in  this  county  in  1832.— [John  D.  Johnston,  M.  D.,  Sumter. 

In  its  earliest  settlement,  about  1816.  A  few  years  later  in  this  county. — [H.  A. 
Stollenwerck,  Perry. 

Cotton  was  grown  on  a  small  scale  as  early  as  1820 ;  and  after  Indian  war  of  1836  it 
•was  more  extensively  raised. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

Cotton  was  grown  in  this  locality  as  early  as  1817,  but  not  as  a,  field  crop  before  1825, 
extending  rapidly  from  that  time. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

In  my  locality  cotton  was  grown  immediately  succeeding  the  removal  of  the  Creek 
Indians  in  1836-'37.— [  A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

We  have  no  records  here  of  the  exact  years  in  which  cotton  was  first  grown ;  it  was 
commenced  on  a  small  scale  and  gradually  increased  from  1820,  and  reached  its  great- 
est about  1858.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

My  recollection  dates  back  to  1827,  but  it  was  grown  even  before  that  time. — [James 
M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

About  the  year  1820.— [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

1830.— [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

Being  a  native  of  both  the  State  and  county  where  I  now  live,  and  am  now  fifty- 
eight  years  old,  can  say  that  as  far  back  as  I  can  recollect  cotton  has  been  grown  here. 
For  the  last  fifty  years  I  should  say  it  has  been  the  leadiug  staple. — [Andrew  Jay, 
Conecuh. 

First  cotton  grown  in  this  locality  in  1812. — [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

Cotton  was  grown  in  small  quantity  aa  early  as  1825  in  Autauga  County.  There  are 
no  records  showing  this,  but  there  are  persons  now  in  this  vicinity  who  testify  to  its 
truth. — [Charles  M.  Howard,  Autanga. 

Cotton  first  grown  in  this  locality  in  1813,  or  to  a  very  small  extent  as  early  as 
1800.— I.  D.  Dreisbach,  [Baldwin. 

The  county  of  Bullock  was  created  from  sections  of  Pike,  Montgomery,  Barbour,  and 
Macon,  in  186(5.  In  1819,  Pike  County  grew  7,1!>2  bales  of  cotion.  The  whites  began 
to  settle  Montgomery  County  in  1816  or  1817.  Macon  and  Barbonr  were  formed  from 
the  territory  of  the  Creek  Indians  in  1832.  Cotton  was  grown  on  the  laud  now  cov- 
ered by  Bullock  as  early  as  1816  or  1817.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

Cotton  was  grown  in  this  (Conecuh)  county,  from  trustworthy  records,  as  early  as 
the  year  1817.— FP.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 


APPENDIX  II ANSWERS  TO  CIRCULAR.         381 

Cotton  has  been  grown  in  this  county  (Dale)  since  1825.  I  have  lived  here  from  then 
until  now. — [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

Very  little  in  the  State  was  grown  previous  to  1820,  and  that  little  was  grown  for 
domestic  use. — [David  Lee,  Lowndes. 

Cotton  was  first  grown  in  the  southern  part  of  Sumter  County  about  1830. — [  J.  N. 
Gilmore,  Sumter. 

Alabama  was  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  State  in  1819,  and  it  is  known  that  cotton 
was  cultivated  before  that  time. — [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

Cotton  was  generally  grown  in  Alabama  in  1819  and  1820,  when  the  State  was  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union,  and  had  become  a  staple  article.  And  as  Alabama  is  one  of 
the  best  cotton  regions  in  the  cotton-belt,  its  cultivation  increased  rapidly,  and  became 
a  paying  industry  to  the  first  settlers. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

About  the  year  1816  or  1817.— [J.  S.  Hausberger,  Bibb. 

ARKANSAS. 

Cotton  was  first  grown  in  1867  for  market  in  this  county. — [John  T.  Wickham 
Clay. 

Cotton  was  grown  in  this  county  as  early  as  1846. — [Norbourne  Young,  Columbia. 

Prior  to  the  war  there  was  little  more  cotton  made  in  this  county  than  for  home  use. 
Since  the  war  there  has  been  a  good  deal  of  cotton  raised  for  shipment,  say  1,000  to 
2,000  bales  per  year.— [S.  W.  Cochran,  Fulton. 

I  am  unable  to  obtain  any  trustworthy  account  of  the  early  history  of  the  produc- 
tion of  cotton  in  Miller  County,  which  was  a  portion  of  Lafayette  County  until  re- 
cently. The  earliest  date  I  can  obtain  is  1835.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

First  cotton  grown  in  1835.  There  was  but  little  raised  until  1840.— [T.  S.  Edwards, 
Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

No  definite  knowledge. — [F.  M.  Meekin,  Alachua. 

The  first  cotton  grown  in  this  county  for  market  was  in  1851.— [John  B.  Carrin, 
Taylor. 

There  is  very  little  cotton  raised  in  this  section,  and  the  habits  of  the  growers  are  a 
series  of  old  time  superstition  ;  all  evils  are  chargeable  to  the  influence  of  the  moon. — 
[W.  E.  Woodruff,  Duval. 

There  is  very  little  cotton  grown  in  this  part  of  Florida,  and  no  worms  have  ever 
affected  it.— [John  M.  McGehee,  Santa  Rosa. 

Cotton  was  cultivated  in  Middle  Florida  as  early  as  1827.— [Robert  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Cotton  first  planted  in  the  county  in  1848,  bnt  not  generally  raised  until  1854. — 
[Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

Cotton  was  introduced  into  Georgia  as  a  crop  between  1790  and  1800. — [William 
Jones,  Clarke. 

From  the  best  information  that  I  can  get,  about  the  year  1822  or  1823.— [S.  P.  Odom, 
Dooly. 

Cotton  was  grown  in  Jackson  County  first  about  1781,  but  to  a  very  small  extent. 
This  county  was  then  called  the  Cherokee  Nation,  abounding  with  savages,  wild  beasts, 
&c. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

Cotton  was  not  grown  in  our  county  earlier  than  1820. — [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

Cotton,  to  a  small  extent,  was  grown  by  aborigines,  the  Indians,  long  before  I  was 
born.  I  was  born  in  1828.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

From  the  best  information  I  can  get,  the  first  cotton  raised  in  Georgia  was  in  the 
year  1739  or  1740,  on  the  Island  of  Saint  Simon's,  by  a  Mr.  Harton.  The  first  year  it 
was  grown  in  this  county  was  1828.  The  first  I  ever  saw  grown  was  in  1812. — [Mor- 
gan Kemp,  Marion. 

1805,  in  the  county.— [John  T.  Wingfield,  Wilkes. 

Cotton  has  not  been  raised  as  a  crop  in  this  county  till  within  the  last  ten  years ; 
have  had  but  little  trouble  with  the  worm. — [James  R.  Brown,  Cherokee. 

There  is  bat  little  cotton  planted  in  Chatham  County.— [George  P.  Harrison,  Chat- 
ham. 

We  do  not  raise  cotton  in  this  county  to  any  considerable  extent;  know  nothing  of 
its  enemies. — [M.  D.  Lansford,  Catoosa. 

There  was  but  little  cotton  grown  in  this  county  up  to  1845. — [H.  W.  Hammett, 
Cobb. 

LOUISIANA. 

No  cotton  grown  in  this  parish.— [G.  W.  Thomas,  Saint  Mary's. 
In  Carroll  Parish,  Louisiana,  in  1827.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  E.  Carroll. 
According  to  tradition,  it  was  raised  here  at  the  beginning  of  this  century — say 
seventy-five  years  ago. — [Douglas  M.  Hamilton,  West  Felinciana. 
I  have  no  records.— [I.  U.  Ball,  M.  D.,  West  Feliciana. 


382  EEPOKT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Descending  the  Mississippi  River  (from  Canada)  Charlevoix  arrived  at  Natchez  and 
there  spent  Christmas  in  1722.  During  this  visit  he  saw  the  cotton-plant  growing  iu 
the  garden  of  Sieur  Le  Noir,  clerk  of  the  Mississippi  Company  (or  as  then  styled  the 
Company  of  the  Indies).  Bienville  mentioned  the  culture  of  cotton  in  the  colony  in 
1735;  Stodard,  in  1740  ;  and  George  Vaudreuil  (as  quoted  by  Judge  X.  Martin),  in  a 
dispatch  in  1746,  mentions  cotton  among  other  things  brought  in  boats  down  the  Mis- 
sissippi River  to  New  Orleans.  It  has  been  cultivated  in  Louisiana  and  Mississippi 
ever  since.— [D.  L.  Phares,  A.  M.,  M.  D.  Wilkinson. 

The  earliest  period  cotton  was  grown  in  this  State  and  county  was  about  1830. — 
[John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

Cotton  has  been  the  staple  product  of  this  county  since  I  emigrated  to  it  in  1846, 
and  it  had  been  for  many  years  previous. — [E.  H.  Anderson,  M.  D.,  Madison. 

I  am  not  aware  of  the  existence  of  any  trustworthy  records  on  the  subject ;  prob- 
ably, judging  from  the  memory  of  old  persons,  it  was  grown  in  this  county  as  early  as 
the  year  1815.— [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

Winston  .County  was  organized  and  settled  in  1833  and  1834.  Cotton  was  planted 
soon  after. — [William  T.  Lewis,  Winston. 

Cotton  was  grown  in  Mississippi  before  its  admission  as  a  State,  1817.  This  coun- 
try was  inhabited  by  Indians  until  1834,  1835,  and  1836.  They  raised  no  cotton  after 
the  sale  of  their  lands,  under  the  treaty  of  1833,  and  amended  in  1834.  In  1835  white 
settlers  raised  cotton  on  a  small  scale. — [Kenneth  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

About  183-2.— [C.  F.  Sheirod,  Lowndes. 

When  and  from  whence  the  plant  was  first  introduced  into  Mississippi  is  not  cer- 
tainly known  ;  most  probably  by  the  early  French  colonists  from  St.  Domingo,  which 
was  a  touching  point  for  the  company's  ships.  It  would  seem  that  its  cultivation 
here  and  in  Louisiana  on  a  small  scale  for  domestic  uses  preceded  that  of  Georgia. 
Charlevoix,  on  his  visit  to  Natchez,  1722,  saw  it  growing  in  the  garden  of  Sieur  Le 
Noir,  the  company's  clerk.  Mention  is  again  made  of  it  1735, 1740, 1746.  (See  Wailes's 
Geology  of  Mississippi,  1854).— [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

From  the  best  information  I  have  been  able  to  procure  from  old  citizens  I  find  that 
cotton  was  cultivated  in  this  State  about  the  same  time  it  was  introduced  into  Louis- 
iana. The  first  cotton-gin  made  in  this  State  was  by  the  order  of  the  United  States 
Government,  at  a  place  in  Monroe  County  that  has  borne  the  name  of  Cottougin  ever 
since.  It  was  made  to  encourage  the  Choctaw  Indians  to  raise  cotton.  Cotton  was 
raised  by  all  the  Indian  tribes  in  this  State  at  a  very  early  day.  This,  Clark  County, 
was  a  portion  of  the  last  purchase  from  the  Cboctaw  Indians.  Cotton  was  planted 
here  by  the  whites  soon  after  the  purchase.  The  first  account  I  have  been  able  to 
procure  of  the  cotton  crop  is  for  the  year  1833 ;  that  year  the  crop  was  380  bales. — [W. 
Spillman,  Clark. 

In  the  county  of  Amite  the  first  cotton  was  grown  in  small  quantities  as  early  as 
A.  D.  1809,  but  was  limited  to  small  farms,  there  being  no  cotton-gins  in  this  county 
at  that  early  day.— [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

Cotton  has  been  grown  in  this  county  since  1820,  but  only  on  a  small  scale  until 
1867.— [Jonathan  Evans,  Cumberland. 

Cotton  for  domestic  use  was  first  raised  in  1806. — [Jasper  Stone,  Gaston. 

Cotton  was  not  much  grown  before  1810.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

Cotton  has  been  cultivated  in  this  county  to  a  small  extent  probably  since  about  the 
year  1800,  or  perhaps  earlier ;  but  very  little  was  produced  until  about  1850,  when, 
owing  to  the  exhaustion  of  the  turpentine  trees,  our  farmers  were  forced  to  turn  their 
attention  to  its  cultivation.  Since  then  the  product  has  steadily  increased. — [John 
Robinson,  Wayne. 

There  is  no  cotton  raised  in  this  county.— [Joseph  Livingston,  Henderson. 

We  raise  no  cotton  in  this  county.— [S.  W.  Blalock,  Mitchell. 

There  is  not  a  bale  of  cotton  grown  in  this  county.— [T.  L.  Rawley,  Rockingham. 

Notwithstanding  we  are  in  a  Southern  State  and  southern  latitude,  we  have  a  north- 
ern climate ;  consequently  there  never  has  been  a  pound  of  cotton  raised  in  our  county, 
and  we  know  nothing  of  the  history  of  the  worm. — [W.  H.  Hartgrove,  Haywood. 

No  cotton  raised  in  this  county  for  sale.— [James  M.  Barnett,  Person. 

We  do  not  grow  cotton  in  this  county. — [  J.  W.  Cooper,  Cherokee. 

Only  a  small  quantity  grown  in  this' county.— [W.  G.  Curtis,  Brunswick. 

As  cotton  is  not  raised  in  this  county  for  market,  no  observations  have  been  made 
relative  to  the  insects  that  prey  upon  the  crop.— [J.  J.  Erwin,  Burke. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

Cotton  was  first  grown  in  this  district  in  the  year  1783,  although  in  a  very  limited 
manner  for  a  number  of  years.  It  soon,  howeveV.  became  generally  planted.— [James 
W.  Grace,  Colleton. 


APPENDIX    II — ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  383 

I  cannot  give  the  time  of  introduction  of  cotton  in  this  connty,  but  it  was  raised 
before  the  Revolutionary  War  of  1776.— [Paul  S.  Felder,  Orangeburgh. 

In  this  county  about  the  year  1807  cotton  was  first  grown. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barn- 
well. 

TEXXESSEE. 

Cotton  was  first  raised  in  this  county  about  the  year  1810.  We  have  no  records  on 
the  subject  here.  Cotton  has  been  raised  in  the  State  to  some  extent  ever  since  it  was 
a  State.— [D.  W.  Holman,  Lincoln. 

Cotton  first  grown  in  the  State  in  1790  and  in  the  county  in  1808.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M. 
D.,  Perry. 

There  is  no  cotton  grown  in  Robertson  County.— [George  W.  Walker,  Robertson. 

Cotton  is  not  raised  to  any  extent ;  sometimes  a  little  for  domestic  use. — [ J.  K.  P. 
Wallace,  Anderson. 

Scarcely  any  cotton  is  grown  in  this  county.  Cotton-worms  are  strangers  here. — [  J. 
S.  Thomason,  Monroe. 

But  little  cotton  grown  in  this  county ;  never  saw  or  heard  of  a  cotton-worm  here. — 
[Ephraiin  Link,  Greene. 

There  is  no  cotton  raised  here. — [H.  W.  Hart,  Bledsoe. 

Cotton  is  not  grown  in  this  county  to  any  considerable  extent. — [  J.  S.  Lindsay,  Camp- 
bell. 

No  cotton  nor  cotton-worms  in  this  county. — [W.  C.  Emmert,  Unicoi. 

There  is  not  sufficient  cotton  raised  in  my  connty  to  justify  a  report. — [A.  Gardner, 
Weakley. 

We  raise  but  little  cotton  in  this  county. — [J.  W.  Hammer,  Sevier. 

No  cotton  raised  in  this  county. — [Robert  McNeilly.  Dickson. 

Very  little  cottun  has  ever  been  raised  here. — [John  F.  Hauser,  Grundy. 

This  county  does  not  raise  cotton. — [L.  C.  Hall,  Jackson. 

Too  far  north  for  cotton. — [Miles  F.  West,  Macon. 

Cotton  was  raised  from  1823  to  about  1830.  Cotton  became  as  low  as  four  cents  per 
pound  when  farmers  abandoned  the  raising  of  it. — [Thomas  J.  Mason,  London. 

As  cotton  is  not  raised  in  this  county,  or  at  least  to  so  small  an  extent  it  is  not  worthy 
of  notice.— [J.  P.  Hooke,  Blount. 

Cotton  was  grown  in  this  section  in  1818. — [John  McMillan,  Decatur. 

About  1815  in  the  county. — [E.  W.  Cunningham,  Henderson. 

TEXAS. 

In  this  State,  Texas,  we  suppose  very  little  cotton  was  planted  before  the  annexa- 
tion to  the  Union.  I  moved  to  this  State  in  1854,  and  found  large  fields  in  cotton  at 
that  time.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

After  1840  cotton  was  grown  to  some  extent  in  our  county.  The  five  years  preced- 
ing 1850  in  a  considerable  quantity. — [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

The  cotton  making  in  this  county  is  small  in  extent,  and  also  careless  in  procedure. 
The  data  for  information  is  very  inadequate  for  giving  satisfaction. — [Prior  Lea,  Go- 
liad. 

Austin's  Colony,  the  central  portion  of  Texas,  began  to  be  settled  by  American  colo- 
nists in  18'20-'21,  and  cotton  culture  soon  after  commenced.  The  writer  arrived  here 
in  April,  1834,  direct  from  Massachusetts,  and  cotton  then  was  universally  cultivated 
throughout  Central  Texas. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

Cotton  was  grown  in  this  county  in  the  year  of  1835. — [Stephen  Harbert,  Colorado. 

1840.-[H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

Cotton  was  first  raised  for  sale  in  the  year  1840.  About  that  time  the  first  gins  were 
established.  Cotton  was  probablv  raised  in  small  quantities  in  other  parts  of  the  State 
before  that  period.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

I  arrived  in  Washington  Connty,  Texas,  November,  1838.  I  found  but  little  cotton 
raised,  and  but  two  or  three  gins  ;  they  were  owned  by  Dr.  Asa  Hoxie,  Judge  J.  P. 
Coles,  and  Mr.  Foster.  Cotton  was  grown  in  other  counties  east  of  the  Brazos  River 
more  or  less.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

In  1877  in  this  county.— [William  Tanner,  Clay. 

No  cotton  planted  here.— [A.  Turpe,  Maverick. 

In  this  section  of  the  State  very  little  cotton  is  grown,  and  in  my  own  connty 
(Menard)  comparatively  none ;  the  soil  is  adapted  to  its  growth,  but  the  climate  is 
too  dry.— [J.  F.  P.  Krinse,  Menard. 

There  is  no  cotton  raised  in  this  county.  There  is  no  cotton  grown  in  this  State 
from  the  San  Antonio  River  to  the  Rio  Grande.  The  climate  is  rather  too  dry  and 
windy.— [W.  R.  Hayes,  Bee. 

Cotton  has  not  been  planted  in  this  county  extensively  as  yet;  only  by  way  of  ex- 
periment.—[James  O.  Gaffeny,  San  Patricio. 

Cotton  has  been  raised  in  this  county  since  1858.  It  was  grown  in  the  State  earlier. — 
[P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 


384  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

Cotton  was  raised  in  Harrison  County  in  1846,  and  in  Upshur  County  in  1347  ;  but 
sparsely,  as  there  were  no  gius. — [J.  M.  Glascoe,  Gilmer. 

The  first  cotton  raised  in  this  county  in  1857.  The  culture  of  it  was  abandoned  in 
1860,  and  taken  up  again  in  1868.— [A"  Schroeter,  Burnet. 

1853,  in  this  county.  From  the  beginning  of  the  war  until  1867  no  cotton  was 
raised. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Cotnal. 

In  the  year  18-21  Jared  E.  Grace  came  to  this  State  (Texas)  and  brought  the  first 
cotton  seed,  and  planted  it  the  next  year.  In  1823  planted  the  unginned  seed ;  then 
gins  were  imported,  and  the  first  gin-house  was  built  in  the  Brazos,  about  three  miles 
from  here.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

Cherokee  County  organized  in  1846.  Cotton  grown  many  years  before. — [Walter 
Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Cotton  was  first  raised  in  the  county  in  1865 — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

In  the  State  (I  have  no  authentic  information  in  the  county),  in  che  year  1845,  and 
in  this  locality  in  1846.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

Captain  Burnham  had  a  small  patch  of  cotton  growing  in  1835  and  1836. — [Xatt. 
Holman,  Fayette. 

QUESTION  1  a. — During  what  year  did  the  worm  first  maJceite  appearance  in  your  locality, 
and,  as  far  as  you  are  aware,  in  the  State  ;  in  other  words,  how  many  years  elapsed  after  cot- 
ton first  began  to  be  grown  before  tlie  worm  began  to  work  upon  itf 

ALABAMA. 

About  thirteen  years  elapsed  before  the  worm  made  its  appearance  in  sufficient  force 
to  damage  cotton;  it  appeared  in  1830. — [J.  S.  Hausberger,  Bibb. 

First  appearance  in  my  locality  was  about  the  year  1861,  as  nearly  as  I  can  recol- 
lect.— [ J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

One  of  my  neighbors  says  that  it  was  first  noticed  in  this  part  of  Alabama  in  l-i:!-'ll. 
My  impression  is,  that  it  was  here  before  that  time.  At  least  we  had  what  was  then 
called  the  "  army  worm,"  and  I  think  that  it  destroyed  cotton  as  well  as  grass  ;  but  I 
cannot  speak  positively  on  this  subject. — [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

Cotton-worm  appeared  here  in  1828,  and  did  considerable  damage  to  the  cotton 
crop. — [Jason  Jones,  Montgomery. 

1846.    Not  less  than  thirty  years.— [H.  A.  Stollenwerck,  Perry. 

The  worm  first  made  its  appearance  in  this  locality  in  1847.  I  am  not  aware  of  their 
having  made  their  appearance  before  that  time  in  the  State. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

About  the  year  1848  or  1849.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

The  cotton  in  this  part  of  the  State  has  never  been  troubled  by  the  cotton- worm. — 
[W.  M.  Douglass,  Madison. 

In  Alabama  the  worm  began  to  attract  attention  in  1837.— [J.  M.  McGehee,  Santa 
Rosa,  Fla. 

1852.  Twenty-two  years  after  cotton  was  first  crown. — [Knox,  Minge  &  Evans, 
Hale. 

According  to  my  memory  the  cotton  crop  was  eaten  up  in  my  locality  in  1826  or  1827. 
I  think  that  was  about  their  first  appearance. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Caterpillar  made  its  first  appearance  in  1--15.  Was  not  general  even  in  this  county 
but  were  very  destructive  in  1846. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

The  worm  first  made  its  appearance  in  this  locality  in  1845. — [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

During  1846,  and  were  more  numerous  then  than  they  have  ever  been  since.  About 
ten  years  after  cotton  was  planted  the  worms  made  their  appearance  in  this  neighbor- 
hood.—[J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

1824.  My  locality  was  at  that  time  Burnt  Corn,  Monroe  County,  Alabama,  latitude 
31°  42'.  The  worms  came  late  and  were  not  numerous  and  did  no  damage.  The 
same  year  they  were  reported  in  Southwest  Georgia.  In  1825  they  were  numerous  here 
by  the  1st  of  October ;  did  not  go  farther  than  latitude  32°. — [David  Lee,  Lowndes. 

Cotton-worms  first  made  their  appearauce  in  this  county  in  the  year  1825,  which 
makes  eight  years  from  the  first  planted  to  the  coming  of  the  worms.— [P.  D.  Bowles, 
Conecuh. 

The  cotton-worm  was  first  noticed  from  about  1828  to  1830;  and  some  think  their 
existence  was  known  within  one  or  two  years  after  cotton  was  first  cultivated. — 
[Charles  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

First  appearance  to  attract  attention,  1836. — [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

From  1833  to  1842  the  worm  was  here,  but  too  late  each  year  to  do  much  damage 
other  than  litter  the  cotton.— [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

About  1840.  Don't  know  of  any  in  the  State  before  that  time.— [James  M.  Harring- 
ton, Monroe. 

Worms  first  appeared  in  1844,  about  the  15th  of  September.— [George  W.  Thagard, 
Crenshaw. 

In  1846.    They  came  to  this  locality  about  September  23,  and  did  their  work  of  eat- 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  385 

ing  the  entire  crop  in  three  days.  They  kept  south  on  a  line  of  23°  25'  north  latitude. 
Have  not  been  so  numerous  since. — [R.  H.  Powell',  Bullock. 

Somewhere  about  1840.— [C.  C.  Howard,  Autanga. 

The  first  destructive  or  general  crop  of  worms  was  in  1847.  Daring  the  first  week 
of  September  of  that  year  they  destroyed  the  foliage  of  the  cotton-plant  over  the  en- 
tire country.  From  1847  to  1860 1  do  not  think  they  were  ever  general  in  this  section. — 
[R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

First  appearance  between  years  1843  and  1849  ;  about  twelve  or  fifteen  years  after 
first  planting. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Suniter. 

Worms  first  destroyed  cotton  here  about  the  1st  of  September,  1843. — [  J.  N.  Gilmore, 
Suniter. 

The  cotton-worm  made  its  first  appearance  about  1840. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bnllock. 

The  first  year  the  cotton- worm  made  its  appearance  in  this  locality  was  1845  or  1846 
in  the  latter  part  of  September,  more  than  27  years  after  the  introduction  of  cotton. — 
[R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

About  the  20th  of  September,  1846,  the  Aletia  argiUacea  made  its  first  appearance  in 
this  locality,  or,  as  far  as  I  know,  in  this  State  ;  thirty-eight  years  from  the  first  plant- 
ing of  cotton.— [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowudes. 

ARKANSAS. 

In  1840  one  party  says  that  he  saw  cotton-worm«i. — [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

The  cotton-worm  was  bad  in  1847. — [Norborne  Youug,  Columbia. 

About  twenty  years  ago. — [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

Have  not  known  of  the  cotton-worm  in  this  section  for  eighteen  years. — [L.  N. 
Rhodes,  Cross. 

I  have  lived  here  twenty-seven  years  and  never  heard  any  complaint  of  the  worm. — 
[J.  W.  Ransom,  Craighead. 

There  has  never  been  any  cotton-worm  in  this  county ;  suppose  -we  are  too  far  north. — 
[O.  L.  Dodd,  Baxter. 

Never  have  been  affected  here  with  worms. — [John  T.  Wickham,  Clay. 

The  worms  have  not  made  their  appearance  in  this  county  for  some  time.— [T.  W. 
Qniun,  Grant. 

We  know  nothing  of  the  cotton-worm  in  this  county.  I  have  been  producing  cotton 
forty  years  and  feel  perfectly  safe  in  stating  that  the  cotton  crop  has  not  been  injured 
by  worms  of  any  kind. — [Alfred  A.  Turner,  Bradley. 

This  county,  situated  on  the  headwaters  of  the  Ouachita,  in  a  mountainous  region, 
is  not  properly  a  cotton  country.  It  is  better  adapted  to  grain  and  grazing,  hence  but 
little  cotton  is  grown,  and  but  little  trouble  is  experienced  from  worms  or  insects ;  so 
little,  no  one  has  paid  any  attention  to  their  history  or  habits.  Once  in  a  while,  not 
often,  some  worms  appear  and  destroy  the  foliage  after  the  plant  has  matured,  doing 
little  or  no  injury.  In  fact  the  farmers  say  it  is  an  advantage,  as  it  facilitates  the  pick- 
ing and  in  a  cleaner  state,  as  there  are  no  dead,  crumbling  leaves  to  get  mixed  with 
the  lint. — [G.  Whittington,  Montgomery. 

FLORIDA. 

The  worm  first  appeared  in  this,  county  in  1866;  in  the  State  in  1832.— [John  B.  Car- 
rin,  Taylor. 
1830;  but  then  its  ravages  were  inconsiderable. — [Robert  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

The  cotton-worm  first  made  its  appearance  in  1804 ;  and  during  the  month  of  Sep- 
tember the  crops  were  half  eaten  up,  when  a  hurricane  swept  over  the  country  and 
destroyed  the  worms. — [W.  Jones,  Clarke. 

The  worm  has  probably  oeen  here  at  intervals  ever  since  1820,  but  I  cannot  fix  upon 
any  certain  date  earlier  than  1842. — [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

The  worm  first  injured  the  cotton  in  this  county  in  1836,  and  then  only  to  a  limited 
extent. — [M°rRan  Kent,  Marion. 

In  the  year  1843.— [S.  P.  Oilom,  Dooly. 

The  worm  did  much  damage  in  1847,  and  appeared  in  force  nineteen  years  after,  in 
1867.— [T.  Fussell,  Coffee. 

First  appearance  in  this  county  in  1882 ;  cannot  tell  -when  first  appeared  in  the 
State.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

1854,  in  this  county.— [J.  T.  Wingfield,  Wilkes. 

The  worm  first  appeared  in  this  county  eight  or  nine  years  ago.  Do  not  know  when 
it  appeared  in  the  State.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

The  worm  never  was  seen  or  heard  of  until  about  ten  years  ago,  say  1867. — [E.  M. 
Thompson,  Jackson. 

The  cotton-worm  has  not  made  its  appearance  here  for  several  years,  and  never  to 
do  any  material  damage — [William  Johuson,  Murray. 

We  have  never  had  any  cotton- worm  in  this  county. — [R.  H.  Springer,  Carroll. 
25  c  I 


386  EEPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

The  worm  has  never  damaged  the  cotton  in  this  locality. — [H.  W.  Hammett,  Cobb. 

General  Robert  Toombs  says  the  cotton-worm  came  from  the  West  Indies  to  Florida, 
and  from  Florida  to  Georgia.  He  thinks  I  shall  find  it  holding  over  in  Florida,  but 
that  I  am  correct  in  stating  that  throughout  the  cotton-belt  the  worm  of  one  year  is 
not  the  parent  of  the  worm  of  the  next,  and  in  the  main  cotton-belt  it  dies  out  in 
whatever  state  it  may  hibernate.  The  insect  had  broken  up  the  cotton  culture  in  the 
West  Indies  in  180l-'02,  and  the  migration  of  French  cotton  planters  to  Georgia  on 
this  account  took  place  in  these  years. — [A.  R.  Grote. 

LOUISIANA. 

The  worm  first  appeared  in  Carroll  Parish,  Louisiana.  September  5,  1846,  and  was 
universal  in  the  parish.  In  1847  it  appeared  in  August  in  the  middle  of  the  field.  On 
the  30th  of  August  the  first  crop  went  into  the  chrysalis  state,  and  the  second  crop 
swept  every  leaf  before  the  21st  of  September. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  East  Carroll. 

From  old  settlers  I  have  learned  that  while  the  old  Mack  seed-cotton  was  planted 
the  army  worm  was  not  known.  This  cotton  rotted  badly,  and  the  Mexican  seed  was 
introduced  about  1820.  Between  1820  and  1828  the  army  worm  destroyed  the  crops, 
but  in  what  year  or  years  I  cannot  learn  exactly. — [Douglas  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feli- 
ciaua. 

The  first  appearance  of  the  cotton-worm  in  this  county  was  about  August  11,  1844. — 
[John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

1804.  It  is  very  probable  that  they  appeared  many  years  earlier,  but  of  this  I  have 
no  documentary  or  other  proof  that  is  reliable.  They  destroyed  crops  in  Georgia  as 
early  as  1793,  and  in  the  Bahamas  in  1788.  Hence  it  is  probable  they  did  likewise  in 
the  country  now  called  Mississippi  at  an  earlier  date. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

My  earliest  recollection,  1845. — [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

Between  the  years  of  1845  and  1850  the  worms  made  their  first  appearance.— [John 
C.  Russell,  Madison. 

Worm  was  not  known  here  until  1847  or  1848,  about  thirty  years  after  the  introduc- 
tion of  cotton. — [C.  Welch,  Covingtou. 

My  first  knowledge  of  the  injury  to  cotton  by  the  worms  was  in  1858,  though  I  have 
no  doubt  they  did  damage  earlier. — [Kenneth  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

The  worm  first  made  its  appearance  on  my  plantation  in  the  year  1885.  It  wan  late 
making  its  appearance,  and  few  in  number,  and  did  but  little  injury. — [Samuel  .Scott, 
Madison. 

1875  was  the  last  year  it  was  very  destructive. — [William  T.  Lewis,  Winston. 

In  1846  and  1847  they  first  made  their  appearance ;  were  not  seen  again  until  1867. — 
[C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

In  the  year  1839  a  few  made  their  appearance  in  our  cotton-fields,  but  did  no  dam- 
age. Afterward,  in  the  year  184(5,  they  appeared  again  in  "  power  and  demonstration" 
and  well  nigh  ruined  the  crops  in  this  locality.  The  worm  appeared  as  early  as  July 
8  in  small  numbers ;  again  about  the 28th  of  the  same  month  in  considerable  force  ;  and 
again  about  the  18th  of  August  following  they  appeared  the  third  time,  and  did  not  leave 
a  vestige  of  the  foliage  of  the  cotton.— [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

From  all  1  can  learn,  the  worm  first  made  its  appearance  in  this  county  in  1846,  and 
afterward  in  considerable  numbers  in  180(5,  '68,  '73,  '74,  and  there  were  a  few  this  year. — 
[W.  Spillman,  Clarke. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

In  the  year  1847  a  worm  exactly  similar  to  the  cotton-worm  made  its  appearance  in 
large  numbers ;  this  worm  fed  on  grass,  Indian  corn,  and  cotton,  doing  more  damage  to 
corn  than  to  cotton.  I  am  unable  to  say  that  it-was  the  genuine  cotton- worm. — [John 
Robinson,  Wayne. 

I  find  no  one  who  ever  saw  a  cotton-worm  in  this  country  before  I860.  They  have 
never  done  much  damage  here. — [Jasper  Stone,  Gaston. 

1863.— [F.  I  Smith,  Halifax. 

1867.— [J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

Cotton-worms  have  never  appeared  in  any  injurious  character  or  in  such  numbers 
as  to  be  destructive ;  we  are  too  far  north  for  them.  When  they  have  appeared  it  was 
late  in  the  autumn,  and  they  were  rather  nn  advantage  than  otherwise,  as  they  re- 
moved the  superabundant  leaves  and  exposed  the  fruit  to  the  influence  of  the  sun. — 
[R.  T.  Weaver,  Hertford. 

I  cannot  recall  but  one  year  (1872)  in  which  the  cotton-worm  did  any  material  dam- 
age.— [H.  M.  Houston,  Union. 

No  cotton-worm  in  this  section  worth  speaking  about. — [T.  H.  Lassiter,  Gates. 

This  is  the  "Laud  of  the  Sky,"  and  the  cotton- worm  is  not  known. — [D.  D.  D  .ivies, 
Jackson. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  387 

I  am  happy  to  report  that  no  species  of  worm  or  insect  has  ever  proved  injurious  to 
the  cotton  in  this  county.— [J.  D.  Click,  Iredell. 

Cotton- worm  has  never  been  in  this  locality. — [M.  McKay,  Harnett. 

So  far  as  I  am  able  to  learn,  the  cotton-worm  has  not  made  its  appearance  in  this 
county. — [Thomas  Long,  Yadkin. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

As  early  as  1793  the  worm  is  said  to  have  swept  over  Carolina  and  Georgia,  hut  is 
first  recorded  in  this  county  in  1804  as  prevailing  generally. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colle- 
ton. 

The  first  appearance  of  the  cotton-worm  in  this  county  was  about  1857. — [P.  S.  Fel- 
der,  Orangeburgh. 

The  worm  first  made  its  appearance  in  the  State  in  1800 ;  in  this  locality  in  1827. 
It  was  twenty- five  years  before  the  worm  was  known  after  the  introduction  of  tho 
plant.— [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

The  Alelia  argillacea  first  made  its  appearance  in  the  county  in  1850.  Had  made 
its  appearance  ten  years  earlier  in  older  counties  of  the  State. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  Perry. 

This  county  has  never  been  materially  damaged  by  the  cotton-worm. — [E.  W.  Cun- 
ningham, Henderson. 

The  worm  has  never  injured  the  cotton  in  this  State. — [  J.  McMillan,  Decatur. 

Henry  County  is  on  the  extreme  northern  boundary  of  the  cotton-belt.  We  are  not 
troubled  here  with  any  insect  or  worm  that  injures  the  cotton-plant  farther  south. 
Onr  only  trouble  is  the  short  season. — [N.  Y.  Cavitt,  Henry. 

Have  never  seen  the  cotton  damaged  by  the  worm  but  once,  then  only  to  a  very 
small  extent.— [L.  Dodson,  McMinn. 

TEXAS. 

From  its  earliest  cultivation  the  oldest  citizens  do  not  remember. — [Walter  Barnes, 
Cherokee. 

1834.  A  boat-load  of  cotton-seed  was  brought  from  New  Orleans  and  planted,  and 
that  year  the  worms  made  their  first  appearance  and  destroyed  the  crop. — [P.  S.  Clarke, 
Waller. 

In  1842  the  cotton-worm  came  in  force,  more  than  any  year  previous.  As  the  plant- 
ing and  cotton  increased  the  worm  increased  also,  coming  to  do  its  mischief  about 
every  third  year ;  some  years  doing  but  little  damage,  others  quite  destructive.  If 
June  was  a  rainy  month  we  expected  the  worm,  as  a  small  miller  or  butterfly  gener- 
ally preceded  it.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

1870  or  1871.— [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

1867  in  the  county.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

18(51  in  this  county,  doing  but  little  damage. — [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

1847.— [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

In  1859  was  the  first  I  knew  of  them  in  this  State,  but  it  is  probable  in  the  coast 
counties  they  appeared  much  earlier. — [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

Cotton-worms  first  made  their  appearance  in  this  county  in  1846 ;  can't  tell  as  to 
other  parts  of  the  State,  but  as  this  is  an  old-settled  county  suppose  not  earlier  than 
that  date.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

The  appearance  of  worms  in  large  numbers  noticed  for  the  first  time  in  1871. — [A. 
Schroeter,  Burnet. 

Cotton-worms  have  never  been  here  but  once  (1869),  and  then  onby  in  one  field. — 
[John  Speer,  Blanco. 

In  1871  or  1872  the  white  cotton-moth,  together  with  a  large  brownish  butterfly,  came 
in  swarms  like  grasshoppers  from  north  10°  east,  by  the  needle,  traveling  south  10°  west, 
for  about  two  days. — [A.  Turpe,  Maverick. 

The  first  appearance  of  the  cotton-worm  in  Texas,  according  to  the  oldest  inhabit- 
ant, was  in  1846.  They  again  injured  the  crops  in  1852  and  1862.  Since  1864  they  have 
appeared  every  year,  some  years  doing  little  or  no  damage. — [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

About  1850  the  worm  was  first  noticed  in  this  county,  but  did  not  appear  sufficiently 
numerous  to  destroy  tho  crops  until  several  years  later.— [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

They  were  first  noticed  here  in  1849.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

My  recollection  is  that  the  cotton-worm  did  not  appear  in  this  section  of  Texas  until 
1844 ;  then  first  on  plantations  near  the  Gulf  coast,  in  Brazoria  and  Matagorda  Coun- 
ties.— [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

The  first  appearance  of  the  cotton- worm  in  this  county  was  in  1848  or  1849. — [Stephen 
Harbert,  Colorado. 

If  my  memory  serves  me  right,  in  1857. — [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

The  first  moth  or  worm  seen  in  this  locality  was  in  the  summer  of  1867. — [J.  W. 
Jackson,  Titus. 


388  REPORT  UPON  COTTOX  INSECTS. 

QUESTION  1  b. — Specify  ilic  years  wltcn  it  lias  been  unusually  abundant  and  destructive. 


From  I860  to  1865  this  section  did  not  grow  cotton  generally.  Bnt  there  were  no 
patches  of  cotton  grown  that  did  not  develop  worms  at,  some  time  during  the  season. 
In  1867,  '08,  '69,  '71,  '72,  and  '73  they  were  general.  In  1872  and  '73  they  did  immense 
damage  to  the  growing  crops.  In  1870  this  section  was  unusually  dry  ;  worms  only  in 
patches.  Crops  for  this  year  large. — [H.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

In  1849  they  were  especially  bad,  and  nearly  every  year  since  more  or  less. — [John 
D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

During  the  years  of  the  war — 1862  and  1863 — there  was  very  little  cotton  planted  in 
this  locality,  hat  sufficient  to  know  that  the  cotton-worm  was  here.  In  186(5,  '67,  '68, 
'69,  and  '70  there  were  more  or  less  worms ;  1873  was  the  worst  year  we  ever  had;  1875 
and  '77  they  ate  the  cotton  clean. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

In  1836  were  very  destructive. — [M.  \V.  Hand,  Greene. 

In  1846  the  worms  were  ahundaut,  but  not  destructive;  the  crop  was  good  ;  in  1866 
they  were  abundant  and  destructive,  coming  in  force  by  the  middle  of  August,  with 
the  crop,  much  of  it  young  from  replanting,  in  vigorous  growth  from  frequent  rains; 
1868,  abundant,  but  not  destructive ;  1873,  most  fatal  year  in  the  history  of  the  worms. — 
[P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

First  in  the  year  1825;  again  in  1831  or  '32  (old  citizens  differ  as  to '31  and  '32);  also 
1867,  '68,  73,  '74,  '75, 78.— [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

1825,  very  abundant,  but  not  destructive  because  of  the  lateness  of  the  time  (Octo- 
ber 1).  In  1846  very  abundant  and  destructive  by  the  25th  of  August.  In  1869  and 
73  the  same. — ID.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

In  1840,  '47,  '54 ;  after  that  in  1866.  They  should  have  made  their  appearance  in 
1861,  but  we  planted  no  cotton  during  the  civil  war.  From  18(56  to  1871,  no  worms ; 
1871, 72, 73.  and  74,  destructive ;  in  1875,  none ;  1876, 77,  and  78,  worms. — [James  M. 
Harrington,  Monroe. 

Their  prevalence  was  at  intervals  of  several  years,  and  the  belief  was  common  that 
they  were  in  some  respects  like  the  seven-year  locust.  So  irregular  in  their  advent 
from  ]830  to  1860  that  the  idea  of  their  septennial  recurrence  was  entertained  by  our 
cotton-planters.  They  were  unusually  destructive  in  1848,  '49,  '54,  '£5,  '58,  '69,  71,  7(5, 
'77, '78.— [Charles  M.  Howard,  Antaug'a. 

In  Alabama  they  have  been  very  destructive  every  year  since  1840  whenever  the 
last  of  July  and  the  month  of  August  were  wet  and  cloudy. — [J.  M.  McGhee,  Milton, 
Santa  Rosa  County,  Florida. 

Very  destructive  in  1842,  '44,  and  every  year  since,  with  the  exception  of  1858  and. 
'59.  No  cotton  grown  in  this  locality  during  the  war. — [I.  D.  Dreisbach,  Baldwin. 

1866,  '67,  '68,  '69,  70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78.— [H.  A.  Stolleuwerck,  Perry. 

1844,  earliest  recollection  of  the  worm.  In  1868  the  worms  appeared  in  strong  force 
about  the  20th  of  August ;  they  have  missed  but  three  years  since.— [Geo.W.Thagard, 
Creushaw. 

They  were  unusually  destructive  in  1847  and  in  several  years  since;  dates  not  recol- 
lected. For  the  last  ten  years  they  have  been  more  or  less  numerous  each  year. — [A. 
D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

The  cotton-worm  has  been  very  destructive  here  since  1865,  some  seasons  earlier  than 
others.— [J.  C.  Mathews,  Dale. 

1864,  '67,  '68,  72,  73, 74, 76, 78.— [John  Withorspoon  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

Their  next  appearance  was,  I  think,  in  1868,  and  have  been  more  or  less  common 
every  year  since.  In  1872  they  were  probably  more  numerous  than  at  any  time  since 
1846,  and  more  destructive;  they  came  in  August.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

From  1860  to  the  present  year;  more  destructive  in  the  years  1869,  73,  74,  and  75, 
but  moreorless  every  year  ;  some  localities  worse  than  others,  as  was  the  case  this  year ; 
some  parts  of  this  county  the  leaves  completely  stripped,  while  others  have  escaped  en- 
tirely.— [II.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

1866  and  73.— [John  Peurifoy,  M.  D.,  Montgomery. 

Every  year  since  1863,  except  1875,  when  there  was  but  a  few. — [ J.  H.  Smith  and  J. 
F.  Calhoun,Dal!as. 

More  destructive  in  1846  than  any  year  since ;  destructive  in  1867  ;  in  1873  destroyed 

the  entire  crop;  in  1878  crop  was  injured  until  about  25th  of  September;  east  and 

southeast  of  here  the  crop  was  destroyed  the  last  of  August  and  first  of  September. — 

[  J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

The  worms  were  very  destructive  in  this  locality  in  1868, 71, 72. — [  J.  S.  Hansberger, 

1866,  '68, 72, 73, 76, 78.— [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

There  were  none  in  1865,  but  in  1866  they  were  very  abundant  and  destructive  ;  also 
in  1872,  and  I  think  in  1874  and  76.— [II.  f  utwiler,  Hale. 

1852,  '63,  '64,  '66,  '<58,  '69, 72,  73, 76,  78.— [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  389 

In  184G  the  caterpillar  almost  destroyed  the  crop.  It  appeared  ill  July  and  eat  tho 
bark  off  the  cotton-stalk,  which  has  not  been  the  case  since.  It  next  appeared  in  1868, 
late  in  August,  and  destroyed  the  top  crop  ;  was  very  destructive  in  1873,  but  in  '74  lesa 
so  ;  in  1873  made  its  appearance  in  May. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

After  1826  or  '27  a  considerable  interval  took  place  before  they  appeared  in  destruc- 
tive numbers  again.  It  has  been  observed  that  their  ravages  have  been  more  fre- 
quent as  the  country  has  grown  older;  that  is,  as  the  lands  are  older  and  country 
more  open. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

There  has  been  no  year  since  1845  in  which  they  have  not  made  their  appearance  ; 
tisually  more  destructive  about  every  third  year. — [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

In  1872  they  were  more  destructive  than  any  year  since  184(5.  But  little  cotton  was 
planted  during  1863  and  '(54,  but  nearly  the  entire  crop  was  destroyed  either  in  1863  or 
'64:  I  forget  which.— [J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

The  worm  was  most  destructive  in  1872  and  '73.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

From  1806  to  '78,  inclusive  ;  1867,  '70,  '73,  '76,  and  '78  were  the  most  destructive  years. — 
[R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

ARKANSAS. 

la  1847  ;  about  T)3  and  '72. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

In  1863,  '66,  and  '67  they  were  very  destructive,  but  since  that  time  there  have  been 
but  few  each  year.— [E.  f .  Dale,  Mi'ller. 
In  Io75  and  this  year. — [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

In  1832,  '39  or  '40,  and  '72.— [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 
GEORGIA. 

According  to  my  experience,  the  worm  was  especially  abundant  in  the  years  1825,  '40,, 
43,  46,  '47.  In  1852  the  worm  made  its  appearance,  but  did  no  material  harm. — [Will- 
iam Jones,  Clarke. 

The  years  1843,  '49,  and  '52.— [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

The  greatest  destruction  in  this  county  occurred  from  the  years  1868  to  '74,  inclu- 
sive.— [Morgan  Kemp,  Marion. 

18(58,  '72.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

It  has  never  done  any  material  damage  except  in  the  years  1868  and  '73. — [A.  J. 
Cheves,  Macon. 

1868  and  '74.  We  have  never  had  them  but  a  few  times.— [Johu  T.  Wingfield, 
Wilkes. 

186S,  '69,  '71,  '73,  '74,  '75  irost  destructive.  In  1876,  '77,  and  '78  they  did  not  injure 
the  cotton  at  all.— [T.  Fussell,  Coffee. 

There  has  been  but  two  or  three  years  that  the  army-worm  has  visited  our  country, 
and  it  was  a  question  whether  they  did  a  service  or  a  damage ;  I  think  they  did  some 
damage.  In  1869  and  '74  they  were  here  in  force. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

Don't  remember.  The  worm  was  a  benefit  to  me,  as  my  cotton  was  too  thick.  My 
people  care  but  little  for  the  worm.  They  destroy  them  when  they  become  too  de- 
structive.— [Win.  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

In  Carroll,  Louisiana,  1846  and  '47.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  East  Carroll. 

The  years  in  which  they  were  most  destructive  are  1844,  '67,  '70,  '72,  '74,  '77,  and  '78. — 
[John  A.  Marymau,  East  Feliciana. 

In  1844,  '64,  '66,  and  '67  they  were  unusually  abundant  and  destructive. — [Dr.  I.  U. 
Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

In  1841,  upon  a  return  visit  from  school  to  the  plantation,  I  saw  the  army-worm  for 
the  first  time.  It  was  then  late  in  the  fall ;  the  cotton  was  yet  green  with  leave^  and 
white  with  open  bolls.  Scarcely  any  damage  was  done  to  quantity  of  crop  made,  but 
the  quality  was  made  very  bad  by  the  litter  and  excrement  of  the  worm,  dropped  on 
the  opeu  cotton.  In  1846  they  appeared  very  early  in  the  season  and  cut  the  crops  in 
this  section  short  from  50  to  60  per  cent.  A  few  may  have  been  seen  by  some  persons 
after  that  year,  but  no  damage  was  done  by  them  until  after  the  war  broke  out.  The 
fact  that  no  notice  was  taken  of  them  generally  and  no  damage  done  by  them  in  this 
section  proves  that  they  were  very  few  in  numbers,  even  if  they  existed  at  all.  As  a 
general  rule  iu  this  section,  our  people  planted  very  little  cotton  during  the  war,  and 
no  appearance  of  the  worm  was  observed  until  1865.  But  in  the  lower  portions  of  the 
State,  after  the  occupation  of  the  country  by  the  Yankee  forces,  the  army-worm  ap- 
peared very  generally,  and  at  such  early  dates  as  to  cut  the  crops  off  very  short.  Since 
1865  they  have  appeared  here  annually;  sometimes  early  and  sometimes  late ;  some 
years  doing  very  little  damage,  and  again  working  great  destruction  of  the  cotton 
crops.  On  some  plantations  they  are  worse  than  on  others,  and  this  occurrence  is  gov- 
erned by  no  rule  or  natural  laws  understood  or  observed  by  our  people. — [Douglas  M. 
Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 


390  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

1804,  '14,  '2",  '46,  '63,  and  I  might  add  '38,  '67, 73,  &c.  They  may  be  found  every  year; 
but  most  years  do  little  damage,  sometimes  none  except  in  very  small  areas. — [D.  L. 
Phares,  Wilkinson. 

1645  and  every  year,  more  or  less,  until  1864,  the  most  destructive  of  all  years.  I  only 
made  3  bales  on  125  acres  land ;  cotton  eaten  np  in  July.  Again  in  1867,  '68,  '69,  '73, 
(bad),  '76,  and  '77.  Again  this  year  worse  than  any  since  '73.—  [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

Abundant  in  the  years  1847  or  '48  and  1866,  '67,  '68,  '77,  and  have  done  some  injury 
this  year. — [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

In  1858 ;  then  slightly  for  two  other  years.  In  1868  they  were  very  bad.  In  1872, 
'73,  '74,  and  '78  they  greatly  injured  cotton.  From  1861  to  '65,  inclusive,  there  was  very 
little  cotton  planted  and  no  record  kept  of  that  little  (during  the  war). — [Keunetii 
Clark,  Chickasaw. 

They  were  very  destructive  in  1867,  '73,  '74,  '76,  and  this  year  (1878).— [C.  F.  Sherriod, 
Lowndes. 

1867  and  '68,  and  other  years  I  do  not  remember. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

They  were  more  abundant  and  destructive  in  the  year  1867  and  the  present  year 
(1878)  on  my  place  than  any  other  years.  They  commenced  in  force  in  the  year  1867, 
on  the  5th  of  September,  and  in  five  days  they  had  eaten  my  crop  up.  They  com- 
menced about  the  middle  of  September  of  the  present  year,  and  have  been  increasing 
ever  since.— [Samuel  Scott,  Madison. 

Have  been  planting  since  1872.  Have  had  cotton-worms  every  year,  more  or  less, 
but  more  destructive  in  1873,  on  account  of  early  destruction  of  crop,  eating  mine  out 
early  in  August ;  other  years  not  stripping  the  cotton  until  September. — [Daniel  Cohen, 

In  1846,  '53,  '60,  '66,  '72,  and  '78  in  this  county.— [George  V.  Webb,  Arnite. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

1865.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

1867,  '70,  and  '73.— [J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

The  cotton-worm  has  never  done  any  real  damage  here  except  in  1869,  and  that  year 
it  appeared  very  early,  the  third  brood  hatching  out  last  of  August.  The  cotton 
fields  were  completely  swept  of  leaves  early  in  September.  In  1863,  '66,  '67,  '68,  and 
'69  we  had  more  or  less  of  them.  Have  not  seen  a  single  one  since  1869. — [John  Robin- 
son, Wayne. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

They  disappeared  after  the  gale  of  1804,  and  were  not  noticed  again  till  1825,  when 
the  entire  cotton  crop  was  destroyed  by  them.  From  1825  to  1846,  they  were  noticed 
as  damaging  certain  localities  every  third  year.  In  1846  they  destroyed  every  cotton 
crop,  causing  the  fields  to  look  as  if  swept  over  by  lire.  Again,  they  prevailed  in  the 
years  1850, '61,  '64, '67,  '70.  Since  then  they  have  appeared  in  certain  localities  and 
destroyed  cotton  crops  now  and  then,  but  have  not  been  so  general  except  on  the 
islands  (sea).  There  they  appeared  every  year,  some  years  in  larger  numbers  than  in. 
other  years.— [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

The  cotton-worm  was  most  abundant  about  the  years  1872  and  '73.  They  have  never 
been  so  numerous  as  to  do  much  damage.— [Paul  S.  Folder,  Oraugoburgh. 

1838,  '40,  '41,  '46,  '49,  '52,  '57,  '62,  '74.— [James  C.  Brown,  Barn  well. 

TENNESSEE. 

From  1850  to  1861  the  worms  very  gradually  increased,  with  the  exception  of  two  or 
three  seasons  when  the  weather  was  unfavorable  to  their  development. — [A.  W.  Hunt, 
Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Every  year  except  1872,  when  wo  had  an  extremely  dry  summer,  and  in  1876.  Mosf. 
destructive  in  1867. — [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

In  the  year  1867,  about  the  10th  of  August ;  two  broods  this  year.  Again  the  last 
of  August,  1868,  two  broods;  too  late  to  do  much  damage. — [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

The  years  when  most  abundant  and  destructive  is  when  the  months  of  June  and  early 
July  arc  moderately  or  tolerably  wet.  I  knew  them,  however,  one  or  more  y<5ars,  to 
come  when  the  season  was  moderately  dry. — [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

Since  18(51  the  years  of  greatest  abundance  were  1866,  '73,  and  '77.  In  '66  and  '73 
they  devoured  every  green  leaf  and  young  boll,  and  then  died  of  starvation  ;  in  '77 
came  too  late  to  do  much  damage.— [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Cotton  was  destroyed  by  worms  partially  in  1846,  '50,  '65,  '66,  '68,  '69,  '70,  '71,  '72,  '74, 
'75,  76,  78,  and  in  '67,73,  and  77  totally.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

No  record  has  been  kept.  I  can  only  give  from  my  own  knowledge  since  1866.  In 
'67,  71,  73,  74,  76,  and  locally  the  present  year.— [Walter  Barnes,  Cherokee. 


APPENDIX    II ANSWERS   TO    CIRCULAR.  391 

They  have  been  with  us  every  year  since  1867  ;  but  not  seriously  affecting  the  crops 
previous  to  that  date.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

1868,  '73,  '74,  and  75.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

1807  and  '68.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Very  abundant  in  1871  and '73  ;  destructive  in  '74  and  '76. — [A.  Schroeter,  Bnrnet. 

In  the  years  1867  and '73  they  swept  the  cotton-fields  of  Southern  Texas  like  a  besom 
of  destruction,  very  little  cotton  being  made.  They  have  swept  the  fields  many  years 
since,  but  '67  and  '73  are  noted  years,  as  nothing  was  made. — [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

From  1850  to  1860  the  worm  appeared  several  times  in  sufficient  numbers  to  injure 
the  cotton,  but  not  to  destroy  it ;  1863,  very  destructive  ;  1866,  the  worst  year  up  to 
that  date  ;  1H63,  the  worst  year  of  all,  the  worm  appeared  (first  brood)  latter  part  of 
May  ;  1875,  '77,  very  bad,  crop  injured  50  per  cent. — [J.  II.  Krancher,  Austin. 

Here  in  1849,  '64, "and  in  '76.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

The  cotton-worm  was  more  destructive  in  1867  than  ever  before  or  since,  although 
very  abundant  in  the  years  of  1877  and  '78. — [Stephen  Harbert,  Colorado. 


QUESTION'  2. — State  what  you  knoio  from  experience  of  the  effects  of  weatlwr  on  tlie  insect; 

ALABAMA. 

The  cotton  caterpillar  prevails  most  when  the  seasons  are  wet,  rather  than  dry. 
But  it  is  not  clear  to  my  understanding  that  a  wet  season  is  in  itself  the  cause  of 
the  appearance  of  the  caterpillar.  A  wet  season  and  black  prairie  soil,  or  other  causes, 
superinduce  a  sappy  growth  of  foliage  and  weed,  and  it  is,  generally  speaking,  only 
the  cotton  heavily  charged  tvith  sap  which  is  attacked  by  the  caterpillar.  It  will  eat 
such  cotton  up  in  a  drouth,  while  oftentimes  in  a  wet  season  cotton  grown  on  clayey 
soils  adjacent  is  untouched. — [John  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

This  question  will  be  answered  in  this  way  :  Six  out  of  ten  farmers  will  say  that 
damp,  cloudy  weather,  with  continuous  rains  in  July  and  August,  is  the  most  favor- 
able, while  the  remaining  four  will  say  they  have  seen  crops  destroyed  during  a  very 
dry  season  in  August ;  consequently,  the  general  conclusion  is  that  the  weather  has 
but  little  effect  upon  the  cotton-worm.— [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

Am  not  certain  ;  but  as  the  sun's  rays  cannot  pass  through  a  green  leaf,  and  the  eggs 
are  laid  on  the  under  side,  where  the  worm  also  lies  during  the  heat  of  the  day,  I 
doubt  whether  the  weather  has  much  effect  upon  them. — [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

When  there  is  cloudy  weather  iu  July  and  August  they  are  most  destructive.  When 
these  months  are  hot  and  dry  and  the  plant  becomes  tough,  they  cannot  do  much 
damage. — [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

A  dry,  hot  summer  is  supposed  to  be  unfavorable  to  their  increase  to  a  great  ex- 
tent.—[A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

The  opinion  which  seems  most  prominent  in  this  locality  on  this  branch  of  the  sub- 
ject is  that  the  more  rain  the  more  likely  will  the  caterpillar  appear,  and  vice  versa. 
During  the  rainy  seasons  there  is,  of  course,  more  cloudy  weather  as  well  as  more  ten- 
derness in  the  leaves  of  the  plant,  both  of  which  are  regarded  favorable  to  their  prop- 
agation and  ravages. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Rainy  and  cloudy  weather  is  certainly  more  favorable  to  its  propagation.  If  the 
summer  (early  summer)  is  wet  we  look  for  the  caterpillar  with  considerable  eer- 
tainty.— [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

My  opinion  is  that  in  wet,  cloudy  weather  they  are  more  destructive  than  in  clear, 
dry  weather.— [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

The  weather  most  favorable  for  the  rapid  growth  of  the  cotton-plant  seems  to  be 
the  most  favorable  for  the  worms.  In  other  words,  the  worms  are  most  destructive 
on  cotton  growing  rapidly,  because  it  is  more  tender  and  succulent. — [J.  R.  Rogers, 
Bullock. 

Damp  and  cloudy  weather  is  best  for  worms ;  if  the  weather  is  very  dry  and  hot  it 
acts  against  them.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  worm  is  not  much  affected  by  the  weather,  after  it  has 
come  out  in  full  force,  but  upon  this  point  a  good  many  farmers  differ.  The  general 
opinion  is  that  warm,  wet  weather  is  most  favorable  to  its  increase. — [J.  A.  Callaway, 
Montgomery. 

The  opinions  of  planters  in  this  section  differ  very  widely  on  this  point.  They  are 
generally  more  destructive  in  wet  seasons,  though  I  have  seen  them  in  full  force  when 
we  have  been  dry  in  this  locality,  owing  to  the  fact,  no  doubt,  of  an  abundance  of  rain 
haviug  fallen  further  south.— [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

Warm,  damp  weather  is  most  favorable  to  the  propagation  of  the  cotton- worm  of 
every  species.  Cool,  damp  weather  (not  cold)  is  most  favorable  for  the  increase  of  the 
cotton-lice,  which  do  their  mischief  in  May  and  June. — [David  Lee,  Lowndes. 


392  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

Sultry,  showery  weather  produces  them.  If  we  have  a  wet  July  and  August  we  are 
sure  to  have  them.— [H.  A.  Sfollenwerck,  Perry. 

Wet  and  cloudy  weather  are  favorable  to  their  multiplication  ;  dry  and  hot  weather 
has  the  opposite  effect. — [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Wet  weather  seems  to  be  favorable  to  the  breeding  of  ^orins. — [George  W.  Thagard, 
Crenshaw. 

My  observation  is,  the  kind  of  weather  makes  no  difference. — [James  M.  Harrington, 
Monroe. 

Damp  and  cloudy  weather  favorable;  hot  and  dry  weather  unfavorable.— [Knox, 
Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

It  is  the  generally  entertained  opinion  that  wet  weather  is  most  favorable  for  their 
production,  but  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  weather  hag  but  little  to  do  with  it.  Onr 
summers  are  all  wet  enough  in  my  judgment  for  them.  They  flourish  best  in  hot 
•weather.  I  have  seen  them  multiply  rapidly  when  there  was  not  rain  for  more  than 
fonr  weeks,  notably  in  1873,  in  July,  when  there  was  no  rain  from  the  16th  of  Juue 
until  the  19th  of  July.— [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

The  prevalent  idea  among  practical  farmers  is  that  a  wet  May  and  June  is  favorable 
to  the  development  of  the  worms.  My  own  experience  is  that  from  lr>47  to  1860  we  had 
both  wet  and  dry  seasons,  and  yet  no  worms.  I  do  not  believe  the  hygrometric  condition 
of  seasons  produces  them ;  yet,  I  do  believe  that  a  wet  season  favors  their  rapid  pro- 
duction or  increase. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

Warm,  cloudy,  and  sho-very  weather  seems  to  best  suit  the  work  of  the  worm  ;  it 
seems  to  ho  more  vigorous,  and  destroy  the  cotton  sooner  during  such  weather. — [J.N. 
Gilmore,  Sumter. 

Don't  think  weather  ex<»rts  any  influence  on  their  propagation,  &c.,  or  on  their  ap- 
pearance, &c.,  from  year  to  year. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

ARKANSAS. 

The  weather  the  preceding  year  and  the  year  the  worms  are  plentiful  have  a  marked 
influence  on  their  destructiveness.  A  mild,  dry  fall  and  winter  followed  by  a  damp, 
hot  season  is  always  favorable  to  moths  and  worms. — [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

Dry  summers  tend  to  an  increase,  at  least  from  the  15th  of  July.  In  cold,  wet  sum- 
mers there  there  are  very  few,  comparatively. — [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

Tho  years  that  the  insect  has  been  most  destructive,  tho  seasons  have  not  been,  ex- 
cessive either  for  wet  or  dry. — [F.  M.  Meekin,  Aluchua. 
Most  warm  weather. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

I  have  seen  the  worm  in  both  dry  and  wet  seasons,  and  the  only  difference  noticed 
was  that  in  wet  seasons  the  growth  of  the  cotton  was  more  luxuriant,  and  the  worms 
had  more  to  feed  upon.— [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  weather  has  but  little  influence  npoii  the  migration 
of  the  parent  of  the  caterpillar.— [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

I  do  not  recollect  that  the  weather  had  any  effect  upon  them ;  the  cotton  was  very 
tall,  and  a  good  seasonable  year  for  crops,  I  think. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

Cloudy  weather  is  the  time  for  the  worm  ;  they  cannot  etaud  the  hot  sun. — [W.  A. 
Harris,  Worth. 

Warm  weather,  moderately  dry,  with  heavy  dews,  and  nights  very  warm,  is  favor- 
able to  the  worm.  When  cool  nights  set  iu  the  worm  webs  up  and  'disappears. — [M. 
Kemp,  Marion. 

Weather  that  favors  a  late  growth  of  the  cotton-plant  is  favorable  to  an  increase  of 
the  worm. — [A.  J.  Cheves,  Mucon. 

Wet  summers  have  proven  to  be  favorable. — [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

In  dry  hot  weather  the  increase  is  slow. — [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

"   %         LOUISIANA. 

Worms  do  not  do  much  damage  during  very  hot  dry  weather.  They  remain  on  tho 
underside  of  the  leaf,  especially  so  when  young,  and  eating  only  in  the  morning  and 
evening.  Damp  stormy  weather  is  necessary  for  the  full  development  of  their  destruc- 
tive powers. — [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

We  have  no  printed  or  written  records,  that  I  am  aware  of,  accessible  to  our  people, 
and  I  cannot  say  what  the  seasons  were  iu  former  times,  before  and  during  the  preva- 
lence of  the  army  worm.  Our  people  are  not  learned,  or  scientific,  as  a  rule,  outside 
of  professional  walks  of  life,  and  the  only  article  I  ever  recollect  to  have  read  on  the 
army  worm,  written  by  one  of  our  people,  was  written  by  a  Dr.  Gorham,  and  pub- 
lished in  Do  Bow's  Review,  New  Orleans,  after  1841.  This  is  no  doubt  among  my 
father's  books,  in  his  library  here,  but  I  have  no  access  to  it  at  present.  I  mention 
this  in  order  that  you  may  cause  the  article  to  be  looked  up  and  referred  to.  Dr.  Gor- 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  393 

bam  insisted,  as  well  as  I  can  remember,  that  the  cotton-worm  was  wafted  here  during 
times  of  high  rains,  from  certain  quarters  of  compass,  from  Central  America  or  other 
more  southern  countries,  where  it  was  always  to  be  found,  and  where  the  cotton  plant 
grew  perenially.  My  experience  is,  that  during  dry  summers  and  falls,  the  worms 
never  appear  early  enough  to  destroy  the  plant  before  a  fair  crop  is  made.— [Douglas 
M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

The  insect  is  7iot  affected  by  the  weather.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciaua. 

When  the  worms  appear,  neither  wet  nor  dry  weather  affects  them  any  way. — [John 
A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Warm,  cloudy  and  wet  weather  always  favorable  to  the  coming  of  the  insect. — [John 
C.  Russell,  Madison. 

Rainy  spring  and  summer  always  produces  this  worm. — [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

I  cannot  say  they  are  affected  by  weather.  Some  of  the  years  mentioned  as  destruc- 
tive years  were  just  opposites,  as  for  instance,  187 (5  and  1878;  1876  was  cool  and  dry, 
1878  wet  and  very  warm. — [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

Extremely  heavy  rains  destroy  some  of  the  worms,  and  perhaps  some  of  the  moths. 
The  worms  cannot  endure  exposure  to  the  unobstructed  rays  of  the  sun  in  the  warm 
part  of  the  day.  The  influence  of  these  two  causes  is  not  large  enough  to  be  of  much 
importance. — [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

1  think  showery  weather  in  June  tends  to  increase  their  breeding  considerably  ;  cool 
•weather  at  that  time  and  later  assists.  The  plant  must  be  growing  so  that  there  are 
tender  leaves  on  the  top  of  the  plant  to  favor  their  increase.  If  not  growing  and  the 
leaves  become  toughened  from  hot  dry  weather  the  worms  do  not  damage  it.— [Daniel 
Cohen,  Wilkinson. 

Cloudy  and  wet  weather  in  July  and  August  invariably  brings  the  fly.  If  we  have 
a,  seasonable  July,  nay  one  or  two  good  rains  and  none  in  August,  we  always  make  fair 
crops  of  cotton. — [Kenneth  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

The  moth  seems  to  delight  in  warm  cloudy  damp  weather,  leaving  its  retreat  more 
readily  when  the  atmosphere  is  in  that  condition.  In  clear  weather  and  hot  sunshine 
they  keep  very  close  until  twilight,  when  they  may  be  found  flitting  from  plant  to 
plant.  The  larvae,  like  the  moth,  seems  to  prefer  cloudy  hot  weather,  but  hot  dry 
weather  does  not  seem  to  check  their  devastations.  Heavy  rain- storms  certainly  do 
check  them.  Cool  weather  seems  to  retard  their  operations. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson, 
Madison. 

May  and  June  very  wet,  cloudy,  and  moderately  warm  will  invariably  bring  this  insect 
in  such  numbers  that  (the  same  conditions1  continuing  in  July  and  August)  the  crop 
will  certainly  be  destroyed.  Any  careful  observer  can,  by  the  close  of  June,  any  year, 
at  any  given  locality,  decide  whether  the  Aleliu  can  iucraise  to  such  numbers  as  to 
damage  the  crop  seriously  during  the  succeeding  months.  This  has  been  done  annually 
lor  the  last  thirty  years  without  a  single  failure. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

Rainy  weather  and  hot  sunshine  alternating. — [VV.  Spillruan,  Clarke. 

I  know  from  long  experience  and  close  observation  that  continuous  rains  in  the 
month  of  July  bring  to  notice  the  worms.  The  winter  has  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  the  appearance  of  this  destructive  insect. — [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

Wet  weather  seems  to  produce  them  when  it  is  very  warm. — [F.  J.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

When  the  worm  does  appear  here,  it  is  in  a  wet  warm  summer,  and  it  appears  first 
in  black  soil,  which  is  low  and  damp.  In  gray  soil  they  never  come  until  after  they 
have  grown  and  been  propagated  on  the  darker  soil. — [Paul  S.  Felder,  Orangeburgh. 

Moist  and.cloudy  weather  is  most  favorable  to  the  rapid  development  of  the  in- 
sect.—[J.  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

Dry  hot  weather  is  unfavorable  to  the  growth,  production,  and  activity  of  the 
worm. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

So  far  as  I  have  observed,  the  weather  exerts  a  decided  influence  upon  the  cotton 
caterpillar.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Dry  hot  weather  is  unfavorable.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

The  only  effect  is — heat  advances,  cold  retards  maturity.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Wet  sultry  weather  most  favorable  to  the  increase  of  the  worm. — [S.  B.  Tackaberry, 
Polk. 

I  do  not  believe  the  weather  has  much  to  do  with  them,  because  this  has  been  the 
wettest  year  for  a  long  time  past,  and  they  did  very  little  damage  in  this  part  of  the 
country.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 


394  REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

As  previously  stated,  the  season  moderately  wet,  or  more  than  ordinarily  so,  the 
mil]er  or  butterfly  is  pretty  certain  to  make  its  appearance  in  July,  a  few  weeks  before 
the  egg  is  deposited.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

After  the  worm  has  once  made  its  appearance,  the  kind  of  weather  does  not  seem  to 
aft'ect  its  further  development  much  unless  the  summer  is  very  hot  and  dry,  in  which 
case  the  young  ones  will  soon  be  killed,  and  even  many  of  the  full-grown  ones  will 
perish  before  they  are  ready  to  spin  themselves  in. — [A.  Schroeter,  Burnet. 

The  worm  has  made  its  .appearance  during  wet  years,  and  the  dry  seasons  of  the 
year  have  also  witnessed  its  coming.  I  believe  that  a  very  dry  spring  will  retard  its 
appearance,  for  in  that  case  it  will  be  more  difficult  to  wake  themselves  from  their 
winter  sleep.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

The  weather  undoubtedly  has  an  influence  on  the  insect,  otherwise  we  would  have 
them  every  year;  but  as  it  is  we  have  but  few  years  of  the  worm.  It  is  true  that  a 
few  make  their  appearance  other  years  in  isolated  places,  but  not  enough  to  attract 
attention. — [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

We  know  that  when  we  have  a  very  wet  spring  and  summer  we  are  sure  to  be 
tioubled  with  the  worm.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

After  the  worm  has  hatched  in  sufficient  numbers  to  injure  the  plants  (this  being 
only  the  case  in  the  latter  part  of  spriug  and  in  summer)  the  weather  being  warm 
does  not  affect  the  worm  particularly.  Only  a  long  and  protracted  drought  will  re- 
tard the  hatching  of  the  eggs,  as  in  1800,  when  a  severe  four  mouths'  drought  pre- 
vented the  hatching  of  a  second  brood. — [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

My  memorandum  books  show  wet  and  warm  weather  in  1846,  particularly. — [C.  B. 
Bifhardaon,  Rusk. 

My  experience  is  that  wet  summers  generate  the  cotton-worm,  as  it  does  most  others 
of  the  insect  tribes. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

It  the  mouth  of  June  is  dry  it  is  a  good  indication  that  the  worms  will  not  hurt  the 
crop  or  if  they  do  come  it  will  bo  late. — [Stephen  Harbert,  Colorado. 

My  experience  is  that  warm  cloudy  weather  is  more  favorable  to  the  moth  in  giving 
it  more  time  in  daylight  to  deposit  its  eggs,  consequently  more  latitude  is  taken  dur- 
ing its  laying  season. — [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

They  multiply  much  faster  in  wet  weather  owing  to  the  earth  being  damp  and  cool. 
They  are  on  the  move  all  the  time.  They  rarely  ever  do  much  damage  in  hot  dry 
weather,  as  the  moths  perish  for  want  of  water,  and  the  heat  of  the  sun  and  earth 
kills  thousands  of  the  young  and  eggs.  They  are  not  dreaded  much  in  dry  weather. — 
[Natt  Holinau,  Fayette. 


QUESTION  2a. — TJic  character  of  seasons  most  favorable  to  its  increase. 

ALABAMA. 

Warm,  damp,  cloudy  weather. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

Wet  cloudy  weather. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

The  character  of  seasons  most  favorable  for  the  increase  of  the  worms  are  such  as 
promote  the  tender  succulent  condition  of  the  leaves  of  the  cotton  plant,  viz,  frequent 
rains  and  consequent  humidity. —  [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

The  seasons  that  the  worms  have  been  most  abundant  are  almost  invariably  wet 
during  the  latter  part  of  the  summer,  yet  the  season  of  18*0  was  an  exception  to  this 
rule.  The  worms  made  their  appearance  early  during  this  year. — [R.  F.  Henry, 
Pickens. 

Warm,  wet  weather. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

In  wet  seasons  they  are  more  abundant  and  destructive. — [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

Such  is  the  influence  of  the  weather  on  the  propagation  of  the  worm  that  we  confi- 
dently expect  them  when  July  and  August  happen  to  be  rainy,  showery,  or  damp  and 
cloudy. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

Have  not  been  able  to  discriminate. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

A  wet  May  and  June  especially  favorably  to  their  development — [Charles  M.  How- 
ard. Autaugn. 

Wet  ai;d  cloudy.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

I  do  not  think  that  wet  or  dry  has  anything  to  do  with  them  during  spring,  or  say 
up  to  June. — [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

They  do  not  increase  in  warm,  dry,  clear  weather,  but  always  in  sultry,  rainy 
weather.— [H.  A.  Stollenwerck,  Perry. 

If  seasonable  in  late  spring  and  early  summer,  throughout  the  cotton-belt  generally, 
we  are  almost  certain  to  have  a  full  and  early  crop  of  the  insect. — [M.  W.  Hand, 
Gieene. 

Weather  cloudy,  warm  and  damp. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

Warm  and  wet.  — [David  Leo,  Lowndes. 

The  caterpillar  increases  when  the  dews  are  heavy,  when  the  seasons  are  rainy,  when 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  395 

the  wind  is  from  east-southeast.  There  must  be,  in  my  opinion,  both  moistnre  in  the 
atmosphere  and  on  the  foliage,  or  much  sap  in  the  foliage  to  preserve  the  lips  of  the 
freshly-hatched  caterpillar  from  the  heat  of  the  sun.. — [  J.  W.  DuBose,  Montgomery. 

Wet. — [Kuox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

Warm  and  cloudy  weather  is  more  favorable  to  the  increase  of  the  caterpillar  than 
hot  and  dry,  for  the  reason  that  in  warm,  cloudy,  or  rainy  days  the  cotton-fly  is  busy 
flying — either  hunting  mates  or  laying  eggs.  In  dry  or  hot  days  they  are  seen  only 
late  iu  the  evening  or  very  early  in  the  morning.  It  is  generally  believed  that  they 
do  not  move  about  much  at  night — little  or  none  after  9  p.  m.  Hot  sun  is  necessary 
for  hatching  the  eggs.  After  the  hatchiug,  neither  the  hot  sun  nor  dry  weather  can. 
check  or  prevent  their  maturity  and  rapid  development. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbonr. 

If  June  is  wet  or  there  is  much  rain  the  caterpillar  is  looked  for  with  certainty. — 
[Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

They  increase  most  rapidly  in  warm,  damp,  cloudy  weather. — [R.  B.  Dunlap, 
Greene. 

Warm,  seasonable,  growing  weather. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autanga. 

When  the  weather  is  warm  and  showery,  calculated  to  promote  a  luxuriant  and  ten- 
der growth  of  the  cotton-weed,  there  seems  to  be  more  worms  generated,  or,  at  least, 
they  eat  the  cotton-plant  foliage  in  a  shorter  time. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

Eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-nine,  '71,  '73,  '74,  '76,  were  known  as  wet  seasons  in  the 
cauebrake  of  Marengo  during  the  spring  anl  early  summer.  In  1872  it  did  not  rain 
on  my  crop  from  April  9  until  May  27,  yet  the  caterpillar  appeared  June  16.  The  season 
(summer)  was  at  no  time  excessively  wet.  In  1874  it  did  not  rain  from  July  until 
September  14,  yet  meanwhile  the  caterpillar  came  in  great  numbers.  In  1876,  the 
spring  and  entire  summer  were  unprecedentedly  wet,  yet  on  my  crop  the  caterpillar 
did  not  appear  until  August  1,  or  thereabout. — [J.  W.  Da  Bose,  Montgomery. 

The  past  year  they  made  their  appearance  in  June  and  continued  to  increase  by  pe- 
riods until  about  the  15th  or  20th  of  August,  when  they  slowly  ate  the  crop  ;  but  they 
did  it  so  slowly  as  to  do  but  slight  damage,  notwithstanding  it  was  a  remarkably  wet 
and  hot  summer. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

Rather  inclined  to  think  they  increase  more  rapidly  in  damp  weather. — [  J.  F.  Smith, 
J.  F.  Calhoun,  Dallas. 

Warm  cloudy  weather  is  decidedly  more  favorable  to  its  increase,  particularly  warm 
nights. — [J.  N.  Gilmore,  Suinter. 

ARKANSAS. 

Warm  springs,  with  a  great  deal  of  south  wind,  some  rains,  though  not  heavy,  with 
a  constant  increase  of  heat  as  the  summer  advances. — [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 
Warm  and  wet. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 
Damp  or  wet  and  hot  seasons. — [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

Wet  seasons  seem  to  be  most  favorable  to  its  increase. — [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 

Damp  cloudy  weather  is  most  suitable  to  their  increase.  Hot  dry  weather 'is  very 
depressing  to  them,  and  they  are  unfavorably  affected  in  proportion  as  they  are  ex- 
posed to  heat. — [  J.  M.  McGehee,  Santa  Rosa. 

Wet.— [John  Bradford,  Leon. 

The  general  impression  here  among  farmers  ia  that  a  wet  season  is  favorable  to  the 
development  of  the  insect.  I  do  not  entertain  this  view,  but  believe  that  excessive 
rain  has  a  tendency  to  retard  their  development.  The  rains  the  present  year  have 
been  excessive,  and  though  the  worm  has  eaten  many  fields  of  cotton,  the  destruction 
has  not  been  general,  but  has  been  retarded,  making  it  quite  late  in  the  season  before 
the  destruction  was  complete. — [F.  M.  Meekin.  Alachua. 

Showery  weather  in  June  and  July,  after  a  mild  winter. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Cloudy,  damp,  or  wet  weather  is  most  favorable  to  its  increase.— [Timothy  Fussell, 
Cottee. 

Rainy  weather.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien.   . 

Wet  seasonable  years  seem  to  be  the  most  favorable. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

Wet  and  damp  weather.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

Warm  seasonable  weather  during  July  and  August,  when  there  is  rain  and  damp 
every  three  or  four  days. — [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

Warm  and  moderately  dry. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

Seasonable  rains  which  keep  the  foliage  of  the  cotton  green  and  tender  is  the  kind 
of  weather  most  favorable  to  its  increase.  The  egg  is  always  deposited  on  the  top  and 
teuderest  leaves  of  the  cotton,  or  cotton  upon  which  the  leaves  are  hard  and  tough. — 
[S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

LOUISIANA. 

Showery  weather  during  the  months  of  August  and  September. — [H.  B.  Shaw,  Con- 
cordia. 


396  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

Wet  weather  is  more  favorable  to  its  increase. — [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 
Wet  weather  is  most  favorable  to  its  increase. — [John  A.  Marymau,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Alternate  sunshine  and  showers,  and  damp,  hot  weather,  with  the  thermometer 
ranging  from  77°  to  87°  Fahr.,  seems  to  be  the  most  favorable  to  its  increase,  especially 
when  the  rainfall  is  not  sufficient  to  retard  cultivation. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson, 
Madison. 

A  warm  mild  winter  for  their  increase,  but  if  July  and  August  are  favorable  to 
farmers,  worms  do  but  little  damage.  If  the  summers  are  so  wot  as  to  make  the  weeds 
grow  very  rank,  they  work  on  particular  spots  anyway. — [Kenneth  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

The  character  of  seasons  most  favorable  to  their  increase  ?  Rainy  seasons. — [ John 
C.  Russell,  Madison. 

It  is  generally  believed  that  hot  weather  with  light  and  frequent  showers  is  most 
favorable  to  the  increase  of  the  worm. — [C.  Welch,  Covington. 
'  Mild  winter,  wet  spring  and  summer. — [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

Warm  weather,  neither  too  dry  nor  too  wet,  has  always  prevailed  when  the  worm 
was  most  abundant. — [  J.  Culbertson,  Ran  kin. 

A  favorable  season  for  cultivating  the  crop.  Damp,  cloudy  weather  seems  to  favor 
them.— [I.  G.  G.  Gariett,  Claiborne. 

A  rainy  season  is  always  most  favorable  to  the  increase  of  this  pest  of  the  cotton. — 
[George'V.  Webb,  Aiuite. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

Warm  and  wet.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

Those  wherein  we  have  a  very  wet  June,  causing  a  luxuriant  and  pulpy  state  of  the 
leaves,  followed  by  cloudy  and  rather  damp  cool  nights  in  July.— [James  W.  Grace, 
Colleton. 

A  warm  wet  season. — [Paul  S.  Felder,  Orangeburgh. 

Warm  and  moist  weather  most  favorable.  The  moist  or  rainy  season  is  unfavorable 
to  insects  that  are  enemies  to  the  caterpillar;  and  the  young,  nutritious  growth  of 
cotton  more  abundant. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

Warm,  cloudy,  and  damp  weather. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Warm  weather  with  showers. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Mild  winters  and  dry  springs. — [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

A  warm  season  with  plenty  of  rain,  to  call  forth  a  prof usioa  of  young  tender  leaves, 
on  which  the  newly  hatched  larvae  can  feed,  is  therefore  most  favorable  tor  the  increase 
of  the  insect. — [A.  Schroeter,  Burnet. . 

Wet  May  and  June.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

There  seems  to  be  no  difference. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Cloudy  weather  succeeding  excessive  rains. — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

A  warm  damp  summer,  without  much  heavy  rain. — [  J.  M.  Glascoe,  Upshur. 

Wet  seasons.— [H.  J.  H.  Brensiug,  Bowie. 

I  once  thought  cold  winters  were 'proof  against  the  worm.  I  have  seen  them  fail 
after  cold  and  warm  winters  alike.  1  have  also  seen  them  come  and  destroy  the  crop 
partly  after  cold  and  warm  winters.  In  1867  the  crops  were  killed  on  the  12th,  13th, 
and  14th  of  March,  by  freezing  weather.  There  was  snow,  hail,  and  rain,  freezing, 
and  wo  had  three  days  of  cold  weather.  The  crops  were  planted  the  second  time,  and 
1  think  more  rain  fell  that  year  than  in  any  previous  one  of  my  experience  during 
the  months  of  June,  July,  and  August.  The  worm  appeared  about  the  20th  of  July, 
but  not  in  force.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

A  moist  and  warm  spring,  and  particularly  frequent  showers  during  June  and  July. — 
[J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

Warm  wet  weather.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

I  cannot  say  what  weather  is  favorable  to  their  increase.  I  think  the  weather  has 
litfrlo  effect  on  them.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

The  most  unfavorable  weather  for  them  is  a  warm  rainy  season. — [S.  Harbert,  Col- 
orado. 

Cloudy  or  rainy  season  will  hatch  the  eggs  better  than  dry  and  clear  weather,  and 
when  hatched  cloudy  or  damp  season  favors  the  full  development  of  the  worm,  and 
its  ravages  are  greater,  for  it  feeds  the  entire  day.  Otherwise,  if  the  season  is  dry  and 
hot,  their  progress  is  impeded,  so  much  that  it  is  of  ten  noticed  by  the  casual  observer. — 
[J.W.Jackson,  Titus. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR. 


397 


QUESTION  2  b. — The  character  of  the  summer  and  winter — whether  icet  or  dry,  mild  or  severe — 
that  have  preceded  years  in  which  Ike  ivorm  has  been  abundant  and  destructive. 


Upon  this  point  we  cannot  speak  positively,  but  incline  to  the  belief  that  dry,  mild 
summers  have  preceded  years  in  which  the  worm  has  been  destructive,  and  that  the 
character  of  the  winters  is  immaterial. — [  J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

I  have  no  record  of  the  character  of  the  weather  before  1866.  The  winder  of  1865- 
'66  was  mild,  with  less  than  average  rain.  The  spring  from  last  of  April  to  10th  of 
June,  excessively  wet;  latter  part  of  June  and  first  of  July,  dry  and  hot ;  last  of  July 
and  to  20th  August,  rainy  ;  1868  much  the  same,  except  spring  rains  that  were  sea- 
sonable. The  winter  of  1872-73  was  severe  for  this  latitude ;  the  spring  dry,  with  ex- 
cessive wet  through  early  summer,  say  to  1st  of  August. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

Average,  thermometer  for  December,  January,  February,  and  March :  1868,  47.08 ; 
186(J,  48.90;  1870,47.44;  1871,52.62;  1872.47.7. 

Fahr. 
In  1873. preceding  winter  severe 50.86 

1874,  preceding  winter  very  mild 53.05 

1875,  preceding  winter  steady  cold 54.05 

1876,  preceding  winter  very  mild 50.08 

1877,  preceding  winter  uncommonly  cold 48.53 

1878,  preceding  winter  mild 

Total  fall  of  rain  during  December,  January,  and  February : 


In  1868 

Inches. 
18  41 

In  1873 

Inches. 
20  07 

1869  

25.83 

1874  

15.11 

1870  
1871 

.   15  58 

1876 

20.92 
21  03 

1372... 

..  22.17 

1877... 

.     8.20 

Total  June,  July,  and  August : 

,  Inches.  Inches. 

Inl868 11.53      In  1873 12.33 

1869 15.84  1874 16.65 

1870 18.70  1875 

1871 14.45  1876 4.47 

1872 23.56  1877 : 4.82 

[J.  H.  Smith  and  J.  H.  Calhoun,  Dallas. 
Cold,  dry  winters  mostly. — [  J.  S.  Hausberger,  Bibb. 

It  is  pretty  generally  believed  that  severe  winters  are  destructive  to  insects.  As  to 
the  correctness  of  this  idea  I  am  a  little  doubtful,  as  the  winter  of  1869  was  the  cold- 
est we  have  had  for  ten  years,  yet  in  that  year — that  is,  1870 — there  were  worms.  And 
in  1876  the  winter  was  much  colder  than  1877,  yet  in  1878  there  were  quantities  of 
worms  ;  so  I  cannot  say  I  believe  the  cold  or  wet  has  much  to  do  with  them. — [R.  W. 
Russell,  Lowndes. 

The  winter  of  1872  and  '73  was  unusually  severe  in  this  section,  the  thermometer 
sinking  to  7°  above  zero.  We  all  thought  this  would  insure  us  against  the  worms,  yet 
li-73  was  our  most  destructive  worm  year.  Last  winter  was  exceedingly  mild,  the 
thermometer  reaching  32°  only  two  or  three  times  during  the  winter,  yet  the  worms 
were  not  developed  until  late  in  the  season,  and  did  not  do  much  harm  to  the  crop.— • 
[R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

Have  seeu  them  destructive  following  almost  every  character  of  winter  and  summer. 
Cannot  say  what  kind  of  seasons  preceded  the  worms  in  the  years  they  were  most  de- 
structive.— [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

The  winter  of  1872-'73  was  moderately  cold  for  this  climate,  as  was  the  winter  of 
1877-78.  both  of  which  years  the  worm  was  most  destructive.— [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

The  winter  of  1827-'28  was  very  warm  and  wet.  It  was  so  warm  that  peach  trees 
bloomed  every  month  during  the  winter ;  but  no  cotton- worm  the  next  summer.  The 
winter  of  1848-'49  was  another  warm  winter,  and  no  worms  the  next  year.  Some  say 
that  when  the  winter  is  warm  the  moths  hibernate  so  much  and  can  get  nothing  to 
subsist  upon  that  they  perish  of  hunger.  Others  say  that  a  cold  winter  freezes  them 
to  death  ;  so  it  is  all  speculation. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

Do  not  think  the  preceding  year  has  any  influence  on  their  coming.  Think  they  are 
here  all  the  time,  and  the  weather  from  May  to  September  causes  them  to  hatch  out. 
If  wet,  we  are  sure  to  have  them  ;  if  dry,  not  so  certain. — [H.  A.  Stolen werck,  Perry. 

It  seems  cold  weather  does  not  affect  them. — [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 


398  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

Worm  winters,  as  they  are  to  be  seen  here  in  warm  seasons  in  winter  (I  mean  the 
fly)  — [J.  C.  Mat  hews.  Dale. 

The  conclusion  is  th;it  the  preceding  winter  has  very  little  to  do  with  their  propa- 
gation.—[Charles  M.  Howaid.  Autauga. 

Mild.— [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

No  difference. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

If  the  weather  is  dry  from  the  15th  of  July  to  the  15th  of  August,  worms  do  but  lit- 
tle damage  to  cotton. — [George  \V.  Thagard,  Crenshaw. 

The  summer  and  fall  of  1865  were  very  dry;  the  caterpillar  was  destructive  in  1866. 
The  summer  and  fall  of  1866  were  very  wet ;  the  caterpillar  was  very  destructive  in 
1867.  The  spring  and  early  summer  of  1869  were  wet ;  no  caterpillars  in  1870 ;  not 
many  in  1671.  The  year  1871  wet;  caterpillars  eat  up  the  crops  by  August  10, 1872. 
The  year  1872  a  dry  one;  caterpillars  early  and  very  destructive  in  1873.  The  year 
1875  very  dry  ;  caterpillars  unequaled  in  1876. — [I.  W.  Dn  Bose,  Montgomery. 

Mild,  warm  winters  preceding  the  crops  indicate  favorable  season  lor  cotton  so  far 
as  the  caterpillar  is  concerned,  as  the  moth  comes  forth  in  warm  days  and  many  of  them 
perish  for  -want  of  food. — [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

Wet  summers  followed  by  dry  fall  and  mild  winter. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

Mild  winters,  wet  springs,  and  hot  summers,  though  we  have  had  one  or  two  excep- 
tions.— [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

A  wet  May  followed  by  July  and  August  showery  is  the  most  favorable  summer  for 
the  worms.  The  winter  has  no  effect  on  them. — [Knos,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

Dry  summers  and  mild  winters;  1872  was  very  dry  and  the  winter  following  very 
mild,  and  in  1873  there  was  the  most  destruction  vre  have  had  by  the  caterpillar. — 
[H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

My  opinion  is  that  the  season  following  a  cold  winter  we  have  less  worms  than  we 
do  alter  a  mild  winter. — [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

We  regard  our  severest  cold  winters  as  being  the  best  preventive  to  their  appear- 
ance the  next  year  in  injurious  numbers.  I  think  the  years  when  their  ravages  have 
been  great  are  those  following  a  mild  winter;  but  with  little  weather  very  cold,  they 
have  been  most  certain  to  prevail  the  next  year  if  the  season  in  other  respects  is  lavoi- 
able  to  their  increase,  to  wit,  wet  and  cloudy. — [Andrew  Jay,  Couecnh. 

More  destructive  alter  a  uniformly  cold  winter;  I  think  they  are  sometimes  destroyed 
by  freezing  weather  after  two  or  three  weeks  of  warm  weather'in  winter. — [  J.  R.  Rogers. 
Bullock. 

Summer  dry  and  hot,  winter  mild  and  dry.— [J.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

The  summers  when  the  worm  has  been  most  abundant  have  been  worm,  and  more 
than  the  usual  quantity  of  rain  fell.  The  winters  have  been  various.  The  worm  hay 
come  both  after  mild  wet  winters,  and  cold  dry  winters.  I  am  satisfied  that  the  pre- 
ceding winter  lias  nothing  to  do  with  the  presence  or  absence  of  the  worm  the  follow- 
ing summer. — [  J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

ARKANSAS. 

Mild  weather  and  dry  through  fall  and  "winter.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

Dry  and  mild. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

The  -winters  have  been  very  mild  preceding  the  years  they  have  been  so  destructive 
and  abundant ;  in  fact  scarcely  any  winter  at  all,  the  ground  not  frozen  two  inches 
deep  during  the  winter,  and- the  summer  belore  also  warm  and  dry. — [T.  S.  Edwards, 
Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

A  mild  winter,  -which  is  generally  a  wet  one.— [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Very  cold,  damp  weather,  with  but  little  sunshine.  This  for  the  most  part  has  been 
a  veiy  hot  summer,  and  hence  but  lew  worms. — [William  A.  Harris,  WTorih. 

Moderately  wet  and  mild.— [S.  P.  Odoni,  Dooly. 

Waim  summers  and  severe  winters. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

Wet  summers  are  most  favorable. — [Timothy  Fussell,  Cotl'ee. 

The  summer  and  winter  were  wet  and  mild;  no  very  cold  weather. — [E.  M.  Thomp- 
son, Jackson. 

Mild  winters. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

LOUISIANA. 

I  have  noticed  no  difference;  the  winter  of  1876-77  was  as  waim  as  we  generally 
have,  and  the  worms  stripped  everything.  Again,  last  winter,  1877-78,  was  very  mild, 
and  the  fields  look  as  bare  as  in  December.  Now  of  the  summer,  we  generally  sutler 
most  during  a  wet  summer.— [II.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

During  the  past  fourteen  years,  during  which  time  the  worms  have  been  here  in 
numbers  almost  every  year,  we  have  had  winters  as  severe  as  common  in  this  latitude. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS   TO    CIRCULAR.  399 

The  -winter  just  past  was  an  exceptional  one  for  coldness,  and  still  the  worms  have 
annually  appeared.  But  in  all  years  when  they  have  done  most  damage  the  summers 
and  fall  were  unusually  wet.— [Douglas  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

From  my  best  recollection  the  summer  was  pleasant  and  dry,  the  winter  mild  and 
wet.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

The  summers  preceding  are  generally  dry,  and  winter  variable. — [John  A.  Mary- 
man,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Having  kept  no  memorandum  of  weather,  cannot  say  as  to  character  of  preceding 
summers  or  winters  when  the  worm  has  been  destructive  ;  but  nothing  in  the  history 
of  the  worm  has  induced  me  think  that  its  invasion  depended  upon  the  character  of  the 
preceding  seasons.  Yet.  my  opinion  would  be  that  it  would  be  more  npt  to  appear  after 
a  mild  winter. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

Late  springs,  when  cotton  gets  a  late  start,  the  stalk  being  succulent  and  sappy 
when  they  attack  its  leaves,  and  with  but  little  matured  fruit  on  it,  the  worms  prove 
most  disastrous. — [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

Some  kinds  of  cotton  are  more  attractive  to  worms  than  others.  Cotton  with  short 
branches  and  rich  foliage,  such  as  the  Dickson  and  Sugar-loaf,  which  forms  a  thick 
shade  near  the  main  stalk,  is  in  greater  danger  than  cotton  with  long  or  scattering 
branches.  During  a  dry  year  the  Dickson  beats  all  other  cotton,  but  during  a  wormy 
year  it  amounts  to  nothing  in  this  locality. — [Kenneth  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

Winters  that  have  been  mild  are  followed  by  the  worm  more  abundant  and  destruc- 
tive. Last  winter  with  us  very  mild,  the  spring  very  wet,  the  summer  very  hot  or 
wet,  and  a  big  crop  of  worms  from  July  as  the  result. — [John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

Hot  and  moist.— [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

Summers  wet  and  mild,  winters  severe ;  I  have  never  seen  them  so  numerous  in  sum- 
mers following  warm,  open  winters.  This  I  regard  as  one  indication  that  they  byber- 
nate  here  to  a  limited  extent.  When  not  benumbed  by  cold,  vitality  and  activity  are 
aroused  in  the  moth,  and  during  "  warm  spells"  it  must  sally  forth  to  seek  food.  In 
these  flights  it  may  be  captured  by  birds,  benumbed  by  cold  air,  or  otherwise  pre- 
vented reaching  its  safe  retreat,  or,  as  often  occurs  to  bees,  the  "  warm  spells  "  would 
tend  to  mature  the  chrysalis  also,  and  hatch  eggs  prematurely,  thus  causing  their  de- 
struction by  cold,  want  of  food.  «S?e.  We  frequently  see  moths  of  various  species  ven- 
ture out  during  winter  and  perish  by  these  means. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

The  winter'of  1876-77,  as  well  as  the  summer  of  1877,  was  unusually  dry,  the  rains 
nearly  all  being  quite  light.  The  winter  of  1877-78  was  perhaps  as  to  moisture  an 
average  winter,  but  the  summer  of  1878  was  remarkable  for  the  number  of  extraordi- 
nary heavy  rains  that  fell  up  to  the  1st  of  July,  when  they  were  succeeded  by  drought 
for  from  three  to  five  weeks,  ordinary  weather  following.  The  winter  of  187G-77  was 
very  cold;  that  of  1877-78  was  the  most  regular  that  has  come  in  thirty  years;  the 
spring  and  summer  until  July  1  were  unusually  cool;  but  after  July  1  the  weather 
was  the  hottest  remembered.  The  injury  in  1877  was  much  greater  than  in  1378. — 
[C.  Welch,  Covington. 

The  year  1873  was  a  most  destructive  one  ;  the  winter  preceding  that,  1S72-73,  waa 
as  cold  a  winter  as  any  I  have  known  for  years. — [Daniel  Cohen,  Wilkinson. 

The  summers  of  1837  and  1878  were  the  two  wettest  since  the  worm  first  made  its 
appearance.— [Samuel  Scott,  Madison. 

The  character  of  the  preceding  winter  or  summer  does  not  seem  to  have  had  any  in- 
fluence on  the  worm. — [J.  Culbertson,  Rankin. 

They  are  thought  to  be  most  abundant  after  a  mild  winter. — [W.  Spillman,  Clarke. 

As  a  rule  a  dry  summer  has  preceded  the  year  the  worm  put  in  his  appearance,  but 
I  do  not  believe  that  has  any  influence  on  the  worm  ;  but  continuous  rains  will  bring 
the  worms  to  the  cotton-fields. — [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

The  worm  always  appears  after  a  long  wet  spell  in  August  and  September.— [J. 
Evans,  Cumberland. 
Cold  o'r  mild  winter  has  no  effect.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

The  summers  have  generally  been  warm  and  rather  dry ;  the  springs  opening  early, 
so  that  the  cotton  would  be  well  grown  and  advanced  toward  maturity  at  an  early 
date;  as  to  the  winters  nothing  uniform  has  been  noticed,  and  we  believe  that  this  in 
no  way  affects  the  worm.— [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

Warm  and  wet  summers  and  a  mild  and  dry  winter  are  apt  to  be  favorable  to  a  good 
"crop"  of  the  caterpillar. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

A  mild  winter,  accompanied  by  a  good  deal  of  snow,  with  a  summer  succeeding  as 
described  in  2  a.  have  preceded  years  in  which  the  worms  have  been  most  abundant 
and  destructive.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  Perry. 


400  REPORT   UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 


Wet  and  mild.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Wet  and  mild.— [II.  J.  H.  Brensiug,  Bowie. 

They  are  most  certain  to  come  if  June  and  July  are  wefc.  I  do  not  think  wet  or  dry 
winters  have  much  influence  with  them. — [O.  II.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

A  mild  winter  has  nearly  always  preceded  the  early  appearance  of  the  moth. — [A. 
Schroeter,  Burnet. 

Generally  a  dry  summer,  bnt  not  always  so.  I  believe  it  depends  mostly  on  June, 
July,  and  August  weather.— [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur, 

From  careful  observation,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  cold  winters  have  but  little  in- 
fluence on  the  worm.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

They  have  followed  both  the  years  of  drought  and  of  copious  rains.  The  last  winter 
•was  so  mild  that  it  was  claimed  by  some  that  the  worms  would  not  make  their  appear- 
ance; that  the  moth  would  come  early,  deposit  its  eggs,  and  the  caterpillar  would 
have  to  die  of  starvation,  there  being  nothing  to  feed  upon. — [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

Have  not  found  the  winter  to  have  much  effect  on  the  moth.  We  have  learned  to 
foretell  the  certainty  and  severity  of  the  worm  by  May  and  June.  If  those  months 
are  warm  and  very  wet  we  are  certain  to  have  the  worm. — [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

A  cold  winter  preceding  a  moist  and  warm  spring  and  summer  is  favorable  to  the 
multiplication  and  increase  of  the  worm,  the  appearance  of  the  fly  or  miller  being 
prevented  by  cold  weather  in  winter,  while  in  mild  winters  the  moths  frequently  ap- 
pear. Have  noticed  them  in  January,  when  no  food  being  found  they  would  die  of 
starvation,  or  the  cold  winds  and  rains  would  destroy  them.  It  has  been  noticed  that 
mild  winters  the  worm  does  not  appear  early  and  is  not  sufficiently  numerous  to  strip 
the  fluids  until  the  boll  has  ripened. — [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

My  book  showed  excessive  wet  weather  all  summer  of  184f>,  before  the  first  season 
of  worms  in  September  in  Louisiana. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

I  cannot  attribute  anything  occurring  in  other  than  the  warm  season  as  affecting 
the  generation  or  protection  of  the  cotton  or  army  worm.  In  what  form  it  exists  in 
the  winter  or  all  the  year  except  two  or  three  weeks  of  its  appearance  in  summer  and 
its  devastation  during  that  short  period  is  unknown  to  me,  and,  eo  far  as  I  know,  has 
never  been  accounted  for  by  practical  or  scientific  men.  I  do  not  think  the  origin  is 
from  distant  torrid  climates,  where  cotton  is  perennial,  as  they  never  destroy  the  cot- 
ton, I  think,  in  tropical  climes.— [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

The  summer  wet  and  winters  mild. — [Stephen  Harbert,  Colorado. 

They  are  more  numerous  in  a  wet  summer  and  fall,  and  after  a  mild  winter.  They 
are  never  so  bad  after  a  cold  winter,  as  it  is  more  destructive  to  the  moth  in  his  win- 
ter quarters,  which  consist  of  driftwood,  trash,  rocks,  bluff,  banks,  &c. — [Natt.  Holman, 
Fayette. 

Wet  summer  and  mild,  dry  winter  have  always  preceded  the  cotton-worm  in  this 
locality.— [J.  W.  Jackson.  Titus. 


QUESTION  2c. — Do  wet  summers  favor  its  multiplication  f 

ALABAMA. 

We  think  not.— [  J.  S.  Hausberger,  Bibb. 

Yes. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

They  do.— [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

Wet  seasons  seem  to  be  essential  to  their  multiplication.— [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Mont- 
gomery. 

In  my  opinion  wet  summers  are  favorable  to  multiplication. — [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

They  certainly  do. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

They  do. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

I  think  they  do.— [C.  C.  Howard,  Autanga. 

As  to  the  moth  or  fly,  it  is  entirely  unknown  to  us  whether  it  is  affected  by'weather 
or  not,  but  I  incline  to  the  opinion  that  it  is  not  until  it  gets  too  cold  for  her. — [R.  W. 
Russell,  Lowndes. 

Wet  summers  almost  always  favor  the  multiplication  of  the  cotton-worm. — [R.  F. 
Henry,  Pickeus. 

I  think  wet  summers  favor  its  multiplication. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

I  have  always  thought  so. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Surater. 

Inclined  to  think  it,  does.— [  J.  H.  Smith  and  J.  F.  Calhoun,  Dallas. 

Unquestionably. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

It  does  —[I.  F.'  Culver.  Bullock. 

Wet  sumruers  favor  its  multiplication. — [ J.  N.  Gilmore,  Surater. 

Wet  summers  do  most  certainly  favor  their  multiplication. — [I.  D.  Dreisbach,  Bald- 
win. 


APPENDIX   II  -  ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  401 

It  is  generally  conceded  by  most  farmers  that  a  wet  summer  favors  its  multiplica- 
tion.— [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

I  think  not.  —  [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

Wet  summers  favor  their  multiplication.—  [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

They  undoubtedly  do.  —  [Charles  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

They  do  generally.—  [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

They  do.—  [II.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

O,  yes  !  as  before  stated.  Wet  June,  July,  and  August  they  are  much  more  destrue- 
ive.—  [  J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

The  impression  prevails  generally  that  hot  summers,  with  long  spells  of  damp,  cloudy 
weather,  favor  the  multiplication  of  the  cotton-  worm.  —  [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

This  is  a  settled  fact  in  this  section.  —  [H.  A.  Stollenwerck,  Perry. 

Yes.  —  L  J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

They  do.  —  [David  Lee,  Lowndes. 

Yes.  —  [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

ARKANSAS. 

Warm,  wet  spring  and  summer  favors  multiplication.  —  [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 
Yes.—  [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 
I  think  not.—  [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

Wet  July  and  August  favors  their  increase  and  their  destructiveness,  by  making  the 
plant  tender.  They  eat  more  and  grow  larger  in  such  weather.  —  [  J.  M.  McGehee, 
Santa  Rosa. 

It  is  the  universal  opinion  that  they  do.  —  [J.  Bradford,  Tallahassee. 

They  do.  —  [John  B.  Carriii,  Taylor. 

So  believed,  the  leaf  being  then  more  succulent  and  tender.  —  [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Wet  summers  favor  its  multiplication.  —  [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

I  do  not  think  they  do.  —  [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

They  do.—  [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

They  do.—  [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

They  most  assuredly  do,  in  great  quantities.  —  [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

They  do.  —  [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

I  think  they  do.—  [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

Wet  summers  generally  produce  what  is  termed  the  "  black  rust,"  especially  on  low- 
lands, thereby  hardening  the  leaves  and  preventing  the  multiplication  of  the  moth.  — 
[S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

LOUISIANA. 

Yes.—  [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

Is  is  evident  that  wet  summers  favor  their  appearance  and  rapid  increase,  and  very 
dry  ones  the  reverse.  —  [Douglas  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

Wet  summers  favor  its  multiplication.—  [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

Wet  summers  favor  its  multiplication  if  the  rain  is  continued  through  the  last  of 
July  and  first  of  August.—  [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Most  assuredly.  —  [  J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

I  think  not.—  [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

Yes  ;  beyond  a  doubt.—  [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkenson. 

Heavy  rains  and  continuous  wet  weather  do  not  seem  favorable  to  its  develop- 
ment. It  would  seem  that  heavy  rains  would  prevent  the  process  of  hatching,  and  if 
the  eggs  did  hatch  would  destroy  the  young  insects.  I  have  never  seen  them  appear 
during  a  protracted  term  of  wet  weather.—  [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

Undoubtedly.—  [Daniel  Cohen,  Wilkenson. 

They  do,  in  affording  a  succession  of  tender  leaves  for  them  to  feed  on.  —  [C.  F.  She- 
riod,  Lowndes. 

I  believe  wet  summers  favor  their  multiplication.  I  think  there  was  a  drought  here 
in  one  or  part  of  both  of  the  months  of  August  and  September  of  one  of  the  years  of 
1873,  '74  or  '75  that  so  destroyed  them  that  they  did  but  little  injury  that  year.  —  [Sam- 
uel Scott,  Madison. 

They  do.—  [John  C.  Russel,  Madison. 

No.—  [J.  Culbertson,  Rankin. 

Wet  summers  certainly  do  favor  its  multiplication.  —  [George  V.Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 


Never  have  them  in  the  summer.—  [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 
Yes.—  [J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 
26  c  I 


402  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

They  never  appear  in  dry  weather. — [Paul  S.  Felder,  Grangeburgh. 

Undoubtedly  yes. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

Wet  summers  do  favor  its  multiplication. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

Yes,  if  the  rains  are  not  too  heavy.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Wet  summers  certainly  do  favor  their  multiplication.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washing- 
ton. 

Yes;  heavy  rains  injure  tho  insect. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

They  do.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

They  do  not.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Probably ;  but  I  see  when  they  make  their  appearance,  whether  wet  or  dry,  they  de- 
stroy all  the  plants  before  they  stop.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

Yes.— [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

A  warm,  damp  summer,  without  much  heavy  rain,  is  the  most  favorable  to  its  multi- 
pliation. — [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Only  by  causing  luxurious  growth  of  the  plant,  while  a  dry  year  would  make  the 
leaves  tough.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

Yes,  for  the  reason  that  the  young  worms  will  find  during  such  seasons  plenty  of 
acceptable  food  in  the  tender  leaves.  As  soon  as  these  get  hard  and  tough  in  conse- 
quence of  dry  weather  the  worms  can  no  longer  subsist  on  them. — [A.  Schroeter,  Bur- 
net. 

In  August,  if  the  summers  have  been  wet  and  the  growth  of  the  plant  unusually 
large  and  full  of  sap. — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

Yes.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

They  do.— [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

I  cannot  say  it  does;  although  it  was  very  wet  before  they  appeared  in  1846. — [C. 
B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Undoubtedly. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

Wet  summers  are  moat  favorable  for  their  multiplication. — [Stephen  Harbert,  Colo- 
rado. 

Yes.— [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

Wet  summers  have  always  favored  its  development  and  increases  its  ravages  in  this 
locality.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


QUESTION  2  d. — Effect  of  different  kinds  of  weather  on  the  eggs. 

ALABAMA. 

Damp  and  cloudy  weather  increases  the  worms.— [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  ] 

The  only  effect  of  weather  on  the  eggs  is  that  produced  by  heat,  retarding  the  hatch- 
ing or  expediting  it  as  the  temperature  is  increased  or  lessened.  Wet~or  dry  does 
not  affect  them  only  so  far  as  the  temperature  is  influenced  by  it. — [P.  T.  Graves, 
Lowndes. 

Hot,  clear  weather  does  not  seem  to  favor  the  propagation  of  the  insect,  while 
warm,  cloudy  weather  seems  to  favor  it. — [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

I  do  not  know ;  yet  believe  wet  weather  favors  their  hatching. — [R.  S.  Williams, 
Montgomery. 

Have  noted  no  change  made  on  the  eggs  by  the  weather. — [John  D.  Johnston, 
Sumter. 

I  doubt  whether  the  weather  affects  the  eggs,  unless  very  cool  weather  does  to  some 
extent  prevent  their  hatching. — [  J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  hot,  dry  weather  is  most  favorable  for  hatching  the  eggs.— 
[J.  S.  Hansberger,  Bibb. 

Hot,  moist  weather  is  beat  suited  to  hatching  of  eggs.— [  J.  A.  Callaway,  Mont- 
gomery. 

Dry,  hot  weather  not  favorable  to  the  hatching  of  eggs  or  increase  of  worms. — 
[J.  D.  Dreisbach,  Baldwin. 

Extreme  dry  weather  on  sandy  lands  does  retard  their  progress.  I  think  tho  reflec- 
tion of  the  heat  upon  the  eggs  has  a  tendency  to  destroy  them,  whereas  on  bottom 
lands  the  plant  protects  the  egg. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

Hatch  sooner  in  wet  weather.— [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

As  the  eggs  are  generally  deposited  on  the  under  side  of  the  leaf  and  on  the  more 
dense  part  of  the  stalk,  without  any  positive  knowledge  on  the  subject,  I  am  inclined 
to  the  opinion  that  after  they  are  deposited  too  strong  rays  of  the  sun  upon  the  leaf 


APPENDIX   II  -  ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  403 

would  be  unfavorable,  as  well  as  not  enough  of  regular  heated  atmosphere  ;  likewise 
too  much  damp  weather.  —  [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Warm,  cloudy  weather  is  favorable  for  hatching  of  the  eggs.  —  [R.  B.  Dunlap, 
Greene. 

Eggs  hatch  better  in  warm,  hot  weather.  —  [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

During  the  period  of  their  increase  the  cotton  is  always  sufficiently  tender  to  sup- 
ply all  the  wants  of  the  young  insects,  and  I  can't  see  what  benefit  rain  would  be  to 
them  ;  that  is,  how  it  would  facilitate  their  hatching,  as  it  is  a  known  fact  that  their 
eggs  are  deposited  on  the  under  side  of  the  leaf,  where  no  rain  would  reach  them.  — 
[R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

The  eggs  are  deposited  on  the  under  side  of  the  leaf,  near  the  middle  of  the  stalk, 
•where  there  is  greater  protection  than  elsewhere  from  rain,  wind,  and  solar  heat.  The 
young  worm  feeds  usually  upon  the  under  side  of  the  leaf,  and  if  the  weather  be  hot 
and  the  leaf  tough  doubtless  many  perish.  A  hot  spell  of  weather  is  always  injurious 
to  the  young  worm.  —  [Charles  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

They  seem  to  propagate  much  more  rapidly  in  hot,  damp  weather.  —  [M.  W.  Hand, 
Greene. 

The  moth  universally  deposits  all  eggs  on  the  under  side  of  the  leaf,  which  is  not 
perceptibly  affected  by  either  wet  or  dry  hot  weather.  —  [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

Damp  weather  is  supposed  to  be  most  favorable  to  the  hatching  of  the  eggs.—  [A.  D. 
Edwards,  Macon. 

Warm,  wet  weather  is  favorable  to  the  hatching  of  the  eggs  and  growth  of  the 
larvae.  Hot  and  dry  weather  kills  many  off.  —  [David  Lee,  Lowndes. 

Wo  think  the  damp,  cloudy  weather  hatches  them.  If  they  are  hatched  out  in  dry 
weather  they  do  not  develop  if  the  weather  continues  dry,  but  if  not  they  are  sure  to 
develop  and  destroy  the  crop.  —  [A.  H.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

They  will  hatch  out  in  wet  or  dry  but  increase  in  wet  weather.  —  [  J.  C.  Matthews, 
Dale. 

ARKANSAS. 

Don't  know.  —  [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

Eggs  will  mature  in  either  wet  or  dry  weather,  though  hot,  moist  weather  seems 
most  favorable.—  [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

The  eggs  seem  to  hatch  out  quicker  in  wet  weather.    I  have  noticed  eggs  which 
failed  entirely  to  hatch  out  during  hot,  dry  weather.  —  [John  Bradford,  Leon. 
Do  not  know.    Very  hot  sun  supposed  to  be  injurious.  —  [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Most  numerous  in  damp  weather.—  [Morgan  Kemp,  Marion. 

The  hot  suns  burn  up  a  great  quantity  of  the  eggs.  —  [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

I  do  not  know  that  1  ever  noticed  the  effect  of  the  weather  upon  the  eggs.  —  [E.  M. 
Thompson,  Jackson. 

Hot  and  dry  weather  is  unfavorable,  cloudy  and  damp  is  favorable  to  the  eggs.  — 
[Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

We  think  that  very  dry  weather  is  injurious  to  the  egg  —  [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 


Cannot  say  positively,  but  think  that  damp  weather  is  most  favorable  to  all  stages 
except  the  moth.  —  [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

I  do  not  think  the  weather  affects  the  eggs  in  any  way,  as  they  are  always  depos- 
ited on  the  under  side  of  the  cotton  leaf.  —  [John  A.  Alaryman,  East  Feliciana. 

Weather  does  not  affect  the  eggs.—  [Dr.  1.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciaua. 


I  have  seen  them  numerous  in  hot,  dry  weather;  also  when  in  wet  weather. — [C.  F. 
Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

Hot  days  and  nights,  with  warm  showers,  are  favorable  to  the  rapid  hatching  of 
the  eggs. — [John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

Eggs  seem  to  germinate  quicker  when  there  are  light  rains,  although  not  very  ma- 
terially.— [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

Cool  or  hot,  dry  weather  seems  to  retard  the  hatching  of  the  egg.  Alternate  sun- 
shine and  showers  or  heavy  dews,  when  evaporation  goes  on  rapidly,  seems  to  be  the 
most  favorable,  natural,  or  atmospheric  condition. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

Moist,  cloudy,  temperate  weather  promotes  development.  Dry,  hot  weather  destroys 
their  vitality.  Both  these  statements  apply  also  to  the  caterpillar,  but  more  especially 
when  very  young.  I  cannot  say  what  is  the  lowest  temperature  that  either  egg,  cat- 
erpillar, chrysalis,  or  imago  may  survive.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

Wet  summers  are  conducive  to  hatching  the  worm. — [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 


404  EEPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


SOUTH  CAROLINA. 


Have  not  experimented  on  this  subject,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
egg  is  much  affected  by  the  weather,  as  the  leaf  generally  sufficiently  guards  it  against 
rain,  and  there  is  always  sufficient  heat  to  hold  it. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

Damp  warm  weather  is  more  favorable  to  the  production  of  eggs.  The  fly  is  more 
active  and  the  ants  less  numerous. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

Warm,  cloudy  weather  insures  a  success  of  the  egg  crop.  Heavy  rains,  with  inter- 
vening intense  heat,  destroys  the  eggs. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

I  believe  the  eggs  in  order  to  hatch  require  shade.  Exposure  to  our  sun  will  destroy 
their  vitality.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

Warmth  advances,  cold  retards  hatching  from  ten  days,  the  earliest,  to  eighteen 
and  occasionally  twenty  days,  the  latest.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Clear  sky  from  8  to  10  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  time  when  the  eggs  are  laid,  is  favorable. — 
[R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Don't  know  that  the  weather  has  any  effect  on  the  eggs. — [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

After  the  eggs  are  deposited  I  know  of  no  weather,  unless  a  frost,  that  will  affect 
them.— [  J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Should  hot,  dry  weather  come,  the  eggs  or  a  portion  of  them  will  be  destroyed. — 
[Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

I  have  thought  hot,  dry  weather  with  a  south  wind  through  the  day  would  destroy 
the  egg,  as  the  wind  would  turn  the  bottom  of  the  leaf  up  and  expose  it  to  the  rays 
of  the  sun.  The  egg  is  deposited  on  the  under  side  of  the  leaf  toward  the  top  and 
tender  part  of  the  plant.  Evenings  that  are  cloudy  are  favorable  for  the  egg  to 
hatch ;  the  worm  gets  strength  quicker  and  not  so  many  destroyed  by  heat.  Frequent 
rains  will  wash  them  off  more  or  less. — [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

The  hatching  of  the  eggs  is  only  retarded  and  prevented  by  excessive  heat  and  dry 
weather ;  the  condition  necessary  for  the  successful  batching  being  warmth  and  mois- 
ture; heavy  dews  or  fogs  being  sufficient.— [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

If  the  moth  is  there,  the  egg  is  sure  to  be  laid  and  hatched,  no  matter  how  wet  or 
dry  the  weather.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

The  impression  is  that  dry,  hot  weather  retards  and  diminishes  this  fatally  de- 
structive army. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

The  wet,  warm  weather  is  more  favorable  to  the  eggs. — [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

After  the  eggs  are  deposited,  if  the  weather  is  cloudy  or  rainy,  the  eggs  will  hatch 
entire,  but  if  the  season  is  dry  and  hot  the  eggs  will  not  hatch  evenly,  and  many  will 
dry  up  and  drop  off  or  will  be  much  delayed  in  hatching.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

Dry  weather  a  very  good  preventive. — [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 


QUESTION  2e. — Effects  of  different  kinds  of  weather  on  the  moth. 

ALABAMA. 

Sunshine,  not  rain,  endangers  the  moth ;  cool  weather  depresses  its  activity  and 
delays  or  protracts  its  egg- laying. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

Warm,  cloudy  weather  is  most  favorable  for  the  moth  to  deposit  their  eggs  on  the 
cotton-leaf.— [J.  A.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

Cloudy  and  wet  the  best  for  them.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

We  think  that  warm,  dry  weather  facilitates  the  increase  of  the  moths,  while  cool, 
damp  weather  has  a  tendency  to  destroy  them. — [J.  S.  Hausberger,  Bibb. 

The  moth  may  be  affected  by  the  weather,  but,  if  so,  we  are  not  prepared  to  say  to 
what  extent.  The  general  impression  is  that  hot,  moist  weather  is  best  suited  to  its 
propagation. — [J.  A  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

Cloudy  weather  is  their  favorite  time  for  laying  eggs.— [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Mont- 
gomery. 

None. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

The  favorite  part  of  the  stalk  for  the  webbing-up,  as  we  call  it,  of  the  caterpillar  is 
among  the  top  leaves ;  and  from  this  I  conclude  that  the  usual  degree  of  the  heat  of 
the  sun  common  at  such  season  is  conducive  to  a  healthful  condition  of  the  moth.— 
[Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Warm,  cloudy  weather,  moths  most  abundant. — [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

When  the  weather  is  warm  and  dry  the  moth  is  hid  in  the  shade  of  the  foliage  of  the 
cotton-plant  until  late  in  the  evening.  In  wet  weather  it  moves  all  day  from  place 
to  place  without  regard  to  morning  or  evening. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

They  are  more  active  in  pleasant,  growing  weather. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 


APPENDIX    II  -  ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  405 


In  warm,  cloudy  weather  we  see  a  great  many  more,  and  they  seem  to  he  depositing  d 
ing  cloudy  daytime,  and  can  he  seen  in  great  numbers  throughout  the  day  in  cotton  th 


ur- 

n that 

is  growing  fast  and  has  a  tender  foliage.  When  the  sun  shines  warm  and  the  weather 
is  dry,  you  will  find  them  flying  late  in  the  evening  and  after  nightfall,  hut  are  seen 
very  little  in  mid-day,  unless  in  lowlands;  never  woodlands.  —  [John  D.  Johnston, 
Sumter. 

I  do  not  believe  the  weather  has  much  influence  on  the  moth.  Do  know  that  they 
live  with  little  protection  throughout  the  winter.  —  [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

Judging  from  the  fact  that  the  moths  come  in  the  house  to  a  lamp  as  numerous  on 
damp,  wet  nights  as  on  hot,  dry  nights,  I  would  say  that  no  kind  of  weather,  save 
the  heavy  fall  of  rain,  u-ill  prevent  them  from  taking  their  accustomed  nightly  strolls.  — 
[P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

I  know  of  nothing  on  this  point  beyond  the  fact  that  the  moth  is  most  active  at 
night  and  early  morning.  It  is  quiet  during  the  heat  of  the  day.  —  [C.  M.  Howard, 
Autauga. 

Weather  that  is  favorable  to  a  vigorous  growth  of  the  cotton-plant  in  July  and 
August  causes  the  moth  to  increase  proportionally.  —  [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

They  will  hatch  out  in  wet  or  dry  weather,  but  increase  faster  when  it  is  wet.  —  [  J. 
C.  Mathews,  Dale. 

Dry  weather,  I  should  say,  was  most  favorable  to  the  moth.—  [A.  D.  Edwards,  Ma- 
con. 

I  see  none.  —  [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

No  kind  of  summer  weather  will  kill  the  moth.  —  [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

Dry  weather,  with  hot  sun,  seems  to  destroy  them.  —  [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Moist,  warm,  and  cloudy  weather  most  favorable  for  moths.  —  [I.  D.  Driesbach, 
Baldwin. 

ARKANSAS. 

Early  springs,  warm  and  dry,  seem  to  favor  and  increase  the  moths.  —  [T.  S.  Edwards, 
Pope. 

Heavy  storms  will  kill  many  moths.  —  [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 
Cool  weather  checks  them.  —  [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

Cold  weather  injurious  in  proportion  to  its  vigor.—  [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Wet  weather  seems  to  be  favorable.—  [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

Cloudy  and  damp  weather  for  the  moth.  —  [T.  Fussell,  Coffee. 

The  hot  sun  kills  them  to  a  great  extent.  —  [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

Most  numerous  in  damp  weather.  —  [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

I  consider  the  dry  weather  most  favorable  to  the  moth.  —  [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

LOUISIANA. 

Should  think  that  they  would  need  dry  weather.  —  [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 
Weather  does  not  affect  the  moths.—  [Dr.  I.  U.  Hall,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

They  enjoy  best  wet  or  moist  temperate  weather,  which  gives  them  food  from 
plant  secretions,  decaying  fruit,  &c.  \Vhen  very  dry  and  hot,  these  sources  of  food 
being  cut  off,  they  are  forced  to  seek  it  in  more  exposed  places  even  in  daytime. 
During  the  first  half  of  September,  1878,  they  caine  nightly  and  daily  in  large  num- 
bers to  suck  the  sirup  and  cane-juice  from  my  mill-pans,  other  vessels,  and  from  the 
bagasse.  They  come  in  these  large  numbers,  although  there  have  been  very  few  ca- 
terpillars in  my  vicinity  and  no  crops  damaged  this  season  by  them,  because,  as  wo  fore- 
saw and  wrote  weeks  before,  the  cotton-plant  was  not  in  such  condition  as  to  afford 
subsistence  to  the  insect,  either  as  caterpillar  or  imago.  —  [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

The  moth  appears  to  be  busy  most  when  the  weather  is  pleasant,  warm,  or  dry.  — 
[John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

In  warm,  damp  weather  it  seems  to  be  full  of  animation,  and  torpid  in  cool  weather.  — 
[Dr.  li.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

Wet  weather  affords  them  more  to  eat  and  they  remain  longer.  —  [C.  F.  Sherriod, 
Lowudes. 

They  seem  to  flourish  regardless  of  season.  —  [  J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

Dry  weather  causes  the  moth  to  disappear  in  the  daytime.—  [George  V.  Webb, 
Amite. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

Nothing  but  cold  seems  to  hurt  it.—  [  James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

Cannot  observe  any  difference  on  account  of  weather  directly  on  the  moths.    From 


406  EEPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

instinct  they  seem  to  anticipate  the  advantages  of  circumstances  to  their  broods,  and 
are  more  or  less  vigorous  accordingly  iu  their  propagation. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barn- 
well. 

TENNESSEE. 

Bright,  warm  weather  most  favorable  to  the  moth. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Deusou's 
Landing. 

TEXAS. 

They  grow  faster  and  commence  their  ravages  sooner  when  the  evenings  are  more 
or  less  cloudy.  The  heat  does  not  affect  them  so  much.  They  commence  their  work 
soon  after  hatched  out  near  the  top  of  the  plant  and  work  down.  As  they  gather 
strength  they  attack  the  tougher  parts  of  the  plant. — [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

The  moths  being  shy,  the  chance  to  study  their  nature  is  rather  difficult ;  though 
hea"vy  storms  of  wind  and  rain  or  cold  nights  will  destroy  them,  I  believe. — [J.  M. 
Glasco,  Upshur. 

No  effects  of  weather  on  the  moth  are  noticeable,  except  that  cold,  wet  weather  will 
retard  the  laying  of  the  eggs  a  little. — [A.  Schroeter,  Burnet. 

They  only  fly  in  dry  weather.  Frost  kills  them.  In  wet  weather  they  seek  shelter. 
— [W.  Barnes, 'Cherokee. 

Weather  does  not  affect  the  moth.  He  never  makes  his  appearance  until  the  weather 
is  suitable  for  his  work.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

Wet  weather  would  be  the  most  destructive.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

Dry,  favorable.    Heavy  rains  kill  the  moth.— [Reed  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Hot,  dry  weather  will  destroy  the  moth.— [J.  Davis,  Hunt. 

Cold  and  heavy  rains  and  storms  prove  destructive  to  the  moths.— [J.  H.  Krancher, 
Austin. 

All  wet  seasons  suit  the  moth  better  than  dry.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

Wet  and  dry,  alternate  rain  and  sunshine,  seem  to  generate ;  while  hot  and  dry 
weather  long  continued  retards  and  diminishes  their  early  appearance  and  numbers. 
[A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

The  effect  of  the  weather  on  the  moth  does  not  seem  to  hurt  them,  as  they  live 
through  our  mild  winters. — [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

Dry  weather  and  cold. — [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

A  wet  or  damp  season  is  more  favorable  to  the  full  development  of  the  moth.  I 
saw,  in  1868,  when  the  second  brood  of  moths  was  coming  out  (the  season  then  being 
dry  and  hot),  the  chrysalis  would  dry  and  parch  up  after  the  perfect  moth  was  ready 
to  come  forth.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


QUESTION  2  f. — Month  of  year  when  greatest  injury  is  done. 

ALABAMA. 

August,  in  this  locality.— [J.  S.  Hausberger,  Bibb. 

August. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

On  our  bottom-lands  the  worm  is  most  destructive  in  the  last  half  of  August. 
Upon  upland  they  are  quite  uniform  in  making  their  appearance  a  week  later,  and 
by  the  10th  proximo  the  crop  is  devoured. — [Charles  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Usually  in  September.  Cotton  that  is  very  forward  escapes.  It  is  supposed  that 
Georgia  suffers  less  than  other  States,  because  they  hasten  the  crop  by  the  use  of  fer- 
tilizers. 1868,  September  14,  I  find  the  following  memoranda  in  my  diary  :  "  The 
worms  are  committing  great  havoc  on  the  cotton.  They  have  eaten  nearly  all  the 
leaves,  and  are  now  attacking  the  small  bolls.  Fields  that  were  green  a  week  ago 
have  now  scarcely  a  leaf  left.  The  crop  in  this  neighborhood  will  not  be  more  than 
one-third.— [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

August  and  September. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

The  earlier  they  come  in  force  the  greater  injury  they  do — perhaps  heretofore  in 
July.— [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

The  month  of  August  is  when  the  worm  does  most  damage  to  the  crop — that  is,  the 
earlier  they  come  the  more  damage  is  done  to  the  crop,  and  the  later  the  least  dam- 
age, for  the  crop  has  more  time  to  mature. — [  J.  A.  Gilmore,  Surater. 

If  the  destructive  crop  is  developed  during  the  month  of  August  the  injury  to  the 
crop  is  great. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

From  the  middle  of  August  to  the  middle  of  September. — [John  D.  Johnston, 
Sumter. 

August.— [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

August  and  September.— [J.  H.  Smith  and  J.  F.  Calhoun,  Dallas. 

August. — [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

August  and  first  of  September.— I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIKCULAK.  407 

August  is  the  month  when  they  have  done  their  greatest  damage. — [R.  W.  Russell, 
LowiHles. 

From  che  15th  of  August  to  tha  10th  of  September. — [H.C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

From  the  loth  of  August  to  the  15th  of  September. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

September.— [J.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

August.— [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

August.— J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

July  and  August. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

When  they  appear  in  June  to  any  considerable  extent  they  are  apt  by  September  to 
become  so  numerous  as  to  clean  out  our  fields.  We  calculate  always  that  the  third 
crop  or  generation  will  clean  our  fields,  and  we  count  six  weeks  a  generation  from  the 
time  the  caterpillar  webs  up  until  the  egg  hatches  and  the  young  worm  begins  to 
eat  the  leaf.  Hence  that  brings  us  to  September,  but  of  course  the  time  of  the  first 
pppearance  has  much  to  do  with  the  time  when  they  eat  up  our  fields. — [Andrew  Jay, 
Conscuh. 

The  most  injury  is  done  in  July  and  August.  The  greatest  injury  done  any  year 
was  in  1S73,  eating  up  the  crop  in  July.  If  they  do  not  come  till  late  in  September 
they  do  but  little  harm. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

The  greatest  injury  is  done  in  August  and  September. — [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

August  and  latter  part  of  July. — [  J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

I  never  knew  the  caterpillar  to  attack  cotton  earlier  than  July.  I  have  seen  it  on 
cotton  in  June,  but  evidently  there  must  be  a  certain  state  of  material  of  the  plant 
before  the  worm  will  eat.  It  may  be  said,  therefore,  that  July — the  latter  part — is  the 
earliest  season  in  this  latitude  that  damage  is  done. — [  J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

In  my  immediate  locality,  during  the  month  of  September,  between  the  5th  and 
15th  if  the  crop  is  forward,  and  from  the  10th  to  the  30th,  if  the  crop  is  backward. 
They  benefit  us,  coming  after  the  first  of  October,  when  the  plant  has  a  vigorous 
growth,  by  cutting  off  the  leaves  and  exposing  the  bolls  to  the  sun,  a  great  many  of 
which  would  otherwise  fail  to  mature.— [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

In  August  and  early  in  September  ;  much  more  destruction,  however,  in  August,  as 
less  of  the  crop  is  then  mature. — [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

The  greatest  injury  is  done  during  August  and  September— dependent  on  localities.— 
[A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

There  cannot  be  any  doubt  in  this  section  but  that  the  month  of  August  is  when  the 
greatest  injury  is  done  to  cotton  by  the  worm. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

August  and  September. — [H.  A.  Stolen werck,  Perry. 

ARKANSAS. 

During  August,  in  the  full  of  the  moon,  worms  are  most  destructive. — [E.  T.  Dale, 
Miller. 

From  the  10th  of  July  to  the  15th  of  August.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 
August  and  September. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

August  is  the  month,  in  this  section,  in  which  the  greatest  destruction  has  been 
done.  I  have  never  known  cotton  materially  injured  by  the  caterpillar  earlier  here, 
and  of  course  any  time  later  is  less  destructive.  The  later  the  destruction  the  less  the 
damage,  as  withered  and  nearly  matured  bolls  are  all  that  escape  destruction. — [F.  M. 
Meekiu,  Alachua. 

July  and  August.  The  top  crop,  which  is  made  in  the  last  days  of  August  and  to 
the  10th  of  September,  is  never  injured  to  much  extent  by  the  worm. — [J.  M.  McGee- 
hee,  Santa  Rosa. 

August. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 

July.— [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 

July  and  August — formerly  August  and  September  ;  difference  caused  by  earlier  ma- 
turity of  cotton,  attributed  to  improved  seeds.— [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

When  the  moth  appears  in  the  month  of  August  it  does  the  greatest  injury.  When 
appearing  in  the  latter  part  of  September  or  October  it  does  but  little  damage,  as  all 
blooms  after  September  15  never  reach  perfection. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

September. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

July  and  August. — [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macou. 

July  and  August.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

August  and  September. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

Last  of  June  and  July. — [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

July  and  September.— [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

September.— [William  Jones.  Clarke. 


408  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

LOUISIANA. 

August  and  September. — [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

When  they  appear  early  the  greatest  is  done  in  July. — [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feli- 
ciana. 
The  greatest  injury  is  done  in  August. — [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciaua. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The  month  of  September.  When  their  appearance  is  made  late  in  August,  I  con- 
sider that  one  entire  month's  making  of  the  cotton  crop  is  destroyed.  The  top  fruit 
of  the  cotton  and  its  entire  last  makings  are  cut  short  completely  by  the  -worm. — 
[John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

They  make  their  appearance  in  this  locality  about  the  20th  of  July  in  limited  quan- 
tities. The  crop  of  worms  that  do  most  damage  make  their  appearance  between  the 
6th  and  10th  of  September.  They  have  done  this  with  remarkable  uniformity,  it  being' 
immaterial  what  kind  of  weather  we  have. — [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

Most  generally  September.  Sometimes  much  damage  is  done  in  October ;  oftener 
and  greater  in  August.  In  a  few  instances  the  crop  has  been  destroyed  in  July,  and 
once  or  twice  in  June. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

September  most  destructive,  but  every  year  I  have  some  cotton  oaten  out  the  last 
of  August,  but  worms  not  insufficient  numbers  to  eat  the  whole  crop. — [Daniel  Cohen, 
Wilkinson. 

About  August.— [William  T.  Lewis,  Winston. 

August.— [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

In  September.—  [Samuel  Scott,  Madison. 

From  the  15th  of  July  to  the  15th  of  September.— [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

The  last  of  August  and  September.— [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

The  greatest  activity  is  generally  seen  in  September,  but  to  be  injurious  the  leaves 
of  the  plants  must  be  stripped  in  August. — [  J.  Culbertson,  Rankin. 

August  and  September.— [W.  Spillman,  Clark. 

In  the  month  of  September. — [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

September;  very  little  injury.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 
September. — [ J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

If  cotton  is  planted  as  late  as  June,  it  is  more  apt  to  be  attacked  by  worms  in  the 
fall,  say  September,  when  the  older  cotton  entirely  escapes. — [Paul  S.  Felder,  Oraage- 
burgh. 

From  the  1st  of  August  to  the  middle  of  September. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

The  greatest  damage  is  done  in  August.  When  they  make  their  appearance  after 
the  15th  or  20th  of  August,  it  is  too  late  for  them  to  be  destructive. — [James  C.  Brown, 
Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

September.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

This  year  in  October.  First  crop  appears  sometimes  as  early  as  the  10th  of  July, 
but  not  numerous;  second  crop  in  about  thirty  days  (ten  days  chrysalides,,  ten  days 
flies,  and  ten  days  eggs,  on  the  average)  ;  in  which  cases  greatest  injury  occurs  from 
the  15th  of  August  to  the  15th  of  September. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

They  usually  make  their  appearance  from  the  15th  to  the  last  of  August,  and  finish 
up  their  work  by  the  5th  of  September.  They  hardly  ever  come  in  force  for  eighteen 
or  twenty  days  from  the  time  first  discovered.  They  first  web  up  and  hatch  a  second 
generation ;  then  the  work  is  soon  done.  They  generally  do  their  work  in  this  county 
(Washington)  from  the  25th  of  August  to  the  7th  of  September.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett, 
Washington. 

The  injury  is  dependent  on  the  stage  of  maturity  of  the  crop.  Should  they  come  in 
June  they  will  destroy  it.  This  year  they  ate  all  the  leaves  the  latter  part  of  August 
and  September,  doing  no  damage  to  the  crop ;  in  some  instances  they  were  a  benelit. — 
[P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

July.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

July  and  August. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Latter  part  of  July  and  first  of  August.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

July  and  August.— [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

July.— A.  Schroeter,  Burnett. 

July  and  August  are  the  months  of  greatest *lam age,  but  generally  August.  If  July 
gets  hot  and  dry,  and  the  cotton  commences  shedding  the  leaves,  then  through  August 
the  worm  disappears. — [  J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 


APPENDIX    II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  409 

August. — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

In  June,  July,  and  August. — [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

In  August.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

The  first  crops  of  worms  appear  in  August,  and  eat  the  leaves  and  web  up ;  and  come 
out  again  in  September,  and  eat  leaves  and  young  boll. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

July  and  August ;  sometimes  they  do  not  destroy  the  cotton  verdure  until  Septem- 
ber, as  was  the  case  this  year.  Then  the  crop  is  not  so  greatly  injured ;  in  fact,  is  but 
little  damaged  by  them. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

The  greatest  injury  done  by  them  is  in  the  months  of  July  and  August. — [S.  Har- 
bert,  Colorado. 

July,  August,  and  September  if  the  cotton  has  been  late  in  planting. — [Natt.  Holman,. 
Fayette. 

In  the  month  of  July  in  this  locality.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


QUESTION  3. — Give,  as  correctly  as  you  can,  estimates  of  the  loss  to  the  crop  in  your  county 
and  State  during  notable  cotton-ivorm  years. 

ALABAMA. 

Where  cotton  has  been  planted  late  and  on  low  wet  lands  the  loss  during  this  sea- 
son (1878)  was  in  many  instances  estimated  as  one-third  of  the  fruit  then  on  the  plant, 
while  on  cotton  that  was  planted  earlier  and  on  dry  land  the  loss  was  not  estimated 
at  more  than  one-tenth. — [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

Loss  in  Bullock  about  5,000  bales ;  loss  in  State  about  75,000  bales.— [I.  F.  Culver, 
Bullock. 

In  1873  in  what  is  known  as  the  "  black  belt,"  from  the  wet  and  worms  together  the 
crop  was  almost  a  complete  failure.  I  would  say  that,  perhaps,  had  there  been  no 
worms  our  crops  would  have  been  more  than  three  times  what  they  were.  Other 
years  the  damage  is  not  so  great ;  perhaps  25  per  cent.— [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

Generally  from  25  to  50  per  cent. — [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

In  1867-'68  the  loss  in  this  section  was  one-fourth  ;  in  1869  little  injury  was  done ; 
in  1870,  none  ;  in  1871,  one-fourth  ;  in  1872,  one-third ;  in  1873,  two-thirds  of  the  crop. 
I  do  not  think  since  1873  that  exceeding  15  or  20  per  cent,  damage  has  been  done  to 
any  crop.  If  the  season  of  growth  is  favorable  to  the  development  of  a  large  weed, 
I  think  that  if  the  worms  do  not  destroy  the  foliage  before  the  last  of  September  they 
favor  the  opening  of  the  cotton-bolls,  and  in  this  become  means  of  direct  benefit. — 
[R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

About  one-third  of  the  crop,  in  1872-'73. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

In  1872  and  '73,  crop  cut  short  one-half ;  other  years  from  one-fourth  to  one- third. — 
[Knox,  Minge  &  Evans,  Hale. 

They  injure  the  cotton  from  one-fourth  to  one-third. — [ J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

When  the  season  is  all  right  for  an  average  crop  or  yield,  and  the  caterpillar  strips 
the  fields  in  September,  the  loss  must  be  20  per  cent.,  if  not  more.  As  to  the  aggre- 
gate loss  I  could  not  undertake  to  say,  in  this  county  and  State. — [Andrew  Jay,  Con- 
ecuh. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  estimate  with  any  accuracy  the  amount  of  loss  by  the  cater- 
pillar in  our  State,  or  even  the  county,  as  the  loss  is  never  uniform.  Some  localities 
suffer  much  worse  than  others  ;  some  plantations  are  eaten  out  a  week  before  others 
in  the  same  neighborhood.  In  1873,  I  am  satisfied  I  lost  one-half  of  my  crop ;  in 
1868,  one-sixth ;  in  1874,  one-sixth  ;  in  1878,  one-fifth ;  other  years,  less.  Would  say 
for  this  county,  in  worst  years,  loss  $50,000  ;  in  the  State,  §500,000.— [H.  Hawkins, 
Barbour. 

In  county  from  one  to  three  fourths  of  the  crop. — [  J.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

I  have  no  statistics  of  losses.  My  general  impression,  however,  is  that  in  the  aggre- 
gate they  have  not  been  very  considerable. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Cannot  say  for  the  State.  In  this  county  and  section  from  one-fourth  to  one-half. 
Last  year  they  destroyed  the  crop  about  the  20th  of  September.  As  it  was  late  the 
damage  was  small.  This  year  they  destroyed  the  crop  the  last  of  August,  and  the 
damage  was  great — not  less  than  one-fourth  and  probably  more.  The  year  1875  was 
dry ;  the  worms  came  late,  I  thiuk  in  October,  and  not  enough  of  them  to  make  much, 
if  any,  impression.— [H.  A.  Stolen werck,  Perry. 

I  cannot  even  approximate  the  losses  by  the  worm,  but  they  are  immense.  No  esti- 
mates yet  made  and  published  exceed  the  damage  we  suffer  from  them.— [C.  M.  How- 
ard, Autauga. 

From  one-third  to  one-half  on  an  average. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

About  one-fourth  of  the  crop. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

In  the  black  lands  of  Montgomery  and  Lowndes  Couuties,  Alabama,  the  worm  rarely 
if  ever  destroys  less  than  one-half,  and  often  three-fourths,  of  the  crop. — [ J.  M.  Mc- 
Gehee,  Milton,  Florida. 


410  REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

I  planted  for  350  bales  cottou  in  1872 ;  believe  I  would  have  gathered  that  quantity, 
but  by  the  15th  of  August  the  entire  foliage  and  smaller  fruiting  had  been  eaten  by 
caterpillars.  I  realized  220  bales.  I  planted  for  250  bales  in  1873.  The  caterpillars 
found  my  crop  very  fine  in  July ;  they  spread  rapidly.  I  realized  85  bales.  One  of 
my  neighbors  thinks  that  in  1876  he  would  have  made  only  25  bales  had  he  not  used 
poison.  By  the  aid  of  the  poison  he  made  150  bales.  The  stage  of  maturity  of  the 
fruitage  when  the  caterpillar  appears  is,  of  course,  conclusive  of  the  amount  of  damage 
resulting. — [ J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

In  1868  probably  one-fourth  of  the  entire  cotton  crop  was  lost  by  the  cotton- worm, 
that  eats  off  the  leaves  and  squares  or  forms  of  cotton.  In  1871  they  appeared  earlier 
than  at  any  other  date  in  my  recollection ;  they  appeared  as  early  as  the  10th  of 
August  in  sufficient  force  to  strip  the  cotton-stalk  of  everything  but  the  full-grown 
bolls.  In  1871  I  think  one-half  the  crop  was  lost  by  the  cotton-worm.— [George  W. 
Thagard,  Crenshaw. 

On  late  cotton  generally  about  two-thirds  of  a  crop  is  lost.  On  uplands  planted 
early  not  much  loss,  as  the  crop  has  generally  fruited  and  matured  before  they  come.— 
[H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

In  1866  the  loss  in  this  county  amounted  to  30  per  cent.,  owing  greatly,  however,  to 
the  large  amount  of  late  cotton,  caused  by  old  seed  having  been  planted  that  failed  to 
germinate,  making  it  necessary  to  plant  again.  In  1873  the  loss  was  70  percent.  This 
year  on  the  bottom  and  lime  lands  a  loss  of  20  per  cent,  is  claimed.  Other  years  the 
damage  has  been  local  or  incidental. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

If  the  worm  comes  early  in  the  season  the  crop  is  cut  off  one-half.  In  1878  the  crop 
was  damaged  one-eighth  in  this  vicinity;  but  east  of  here  in  this  county,  where  the 
worm  came  in  August,  the  crop  was  damaged  one-fourth. — [J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

In  1836,  about  one-third ;  1844,  about  one-third ;  1852,  one-half ;  in  1867,  about  one- 
fifth  ;  in  1868,  about  one-fourth  of  the  crop  was  destroyed ;  in  1869,  about  one-third ; 
in  1873,  fully  one-third.— [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

In  1866,  about  one-third;  in  1871,  about  one-half;  in  1872,  one-fourth;  in  1873,  one- 
eighth  ;  and  in  1876,  one-half.— [J.  S.  Hansberger,  Bibb. 

Where  the  crop  is  well  advanced,  the  land  being  well  prepared,  and  planted  just  as 
early  as  the  season  will  permit,  cultivated  well  andrapidly,  and,  as  thesayingis,  "pushed 
from  the  word  go,"  the  loss  is  much  less  than  when  planted  late  and  poorly  cultivated. 
The  general  average  of  loss  we  estimate  for  county  and  State  to  be  33^  per  cent. — [  J. 
A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

Farmers  divide  the  crop  into  three  sections  or  crops :  (1)  bottom,  (2)  middle,  and 
(3)  top  crop,  all  of  which  very  easily  mature.  In  the  year  1825  the  oldest  farmers  now 
living  estimate  the  loss  at  98  per  cent.  Mr.  Chesley  Crosby,  a  large  planter,  only 
gathered  10  bales  from  500  acres.  In  1867  at  least  66| ;  1868,  25;  loss  in  1873,  about 
40 ;  some  placing  it  at  90,  some  75 ;  1874,  about  the  same  as  1873,  each  farmer  estimat- 
ing from  his  individual  loss.  In  1874  Mr.  le  Dramond  gathered  900  pounds  of  seed 
cotton  from  14  acres,  which  would  have  produced  1,000  pounds  per  acre.  This  is  about 
an  average  for  this  county  for  1874.  But  taking  the  drought  and  rainy  seasons  year 
after  year,  together,  with  all  things  incident  to  cotton-growing,  I  think  that  50  is  a 
Very  fair  average  since  1868. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

I  have  not  the  data  and  hence  can  hardly  give  the  approximate  losses  in  the  cotton 
crop  in  notable  worm  years.  If  the  season  is  favorable,  the  cotton  planted  early  and 
well  cultivated,  much  is  gained,  and  the  loss  would  be  light ;  for  when  the  bottom 
crop  is  heavy  the  top  crop  is  light ;  hence  there  would  be  less  for  worms  to  destroy. 
But  if  the  spring  is  cool  and  wet,  and  the  summer  wet,  the  crop  will  of  necessity  be 
badly  cultivated ;  and  consequently  the  crop  will  be  late.  Under  such  disadvantages 
the  crop  would  be  cut  off  one-third. — [David  Lee,  Lowndes. 

ARKANSAS. 

I  think  the  loss  to  the  crop  in  this  county  this  year  will  be  $100,000.  At  least  one- 
fourth  of  the  crop  is  destroyed.  Planters  were  not  aware  of  the  extent  of  damage  until 
they  bad  picked  a  good  deal. — [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

During  the  years  1865-'68-'67,  the  worms  destroyed  at  least  one-fourth  of  the  crop 
each  year,  and  in  some  portions  of  the  Red  River  lands  the  entire  crop  on  many  plan- 
tations.—[E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

The  losses  vary,  of  course,  according  to  the  completeness  of  destruction  and  the 
amount  of  matured  cotton  at  the  time  of  destruction.  In  some  fields  I  have  seen  four- 
fifths  destroyed ;  in  others,  not  exceeding  a  fifth,  though  both  were  entirely  eaten  over 
"by  the  worm.  But  I  think  it  safe  to  say  the  destruction  generally  amounted  to  one- 
third  in  the  bad  years.— [F.  M.  Meekin,  Alachua. 

GEORGIA. 

I  don't  think  our  county  lost  any  from  the  effects  of  the  worm,  as  it  was  late  before 
they  came,  and  barely  touched  the  bolls  of  cotton.  In  places  they  come  in  August, 
and  make  havoc  with  the  cotton. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  411 

In  a  bad  worm  year,  wet  and  cool,  they  destroy  all  tho  top  cotton,  and  necessarily  it 
is  cut  off  one-half.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

The  loss  in  my  county  in  18^5  and  '40  was  fully  one-third. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

The  most  notable  cotton- worm  years  the  estimate  of  the  loss  was  about  one-third. — 
[Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

The  losses  from  worms  in  this  couaty  have  been  very  small,  not  one  bale  out  of  a 
thousand. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

Half  the  crop,  at  least.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

In  the  years  when  most  destructive,  their  damages  are  at  least  25  per  cent. — [S.  P. 
Odom,  Dooly. 

Never  greater  than  from  10  to  20  per  cent.— [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

LOUISIANA. 

In  1841  the  losses  were  greatest  from  injury  done  to  the  quality  of  the  cotton  from 
the  litter  and  excrement  dropped  by  the  worms  on  the  open  bolls.  Their  appearance 
was  late  and  a  good  crop  of  bolls  had  already  been  matured  ou  the  stalks  before  they 
appeared  in  sufficient  numbers  to  destroy  the  plants.  The  last  crop  of  worms  were 
very  large,  and  roads,  ditches,  and  all  places  were  tilled  with  them,  when  they  began 
their  march  after  eating  out  the  cotton-lields.  In  1846  the  cotton-crops  hero  were  cut 
short  from  50  to  GO  per  cent.  In  the  last  fourteen  years,  the  destructive  years  were 
particularly  18(57,  '71,  '72,  and  '73. — [Douglas  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciaua. 

The  losses  vary  from  four-fifths  to  one-third.  In  1844  the  fanners  scarcely  raised 
cotton-seed  enough  to  plant  their  crops  of  1845.— [John  A.  Mary  man,  East  Feliciana. 

The  loss  during  the  years  mentioned  was  fully  two-thirds. — [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West 
Felieiana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I  will  give  the  estimate  of  the  loss  for  the  first  destructive  year  (1846).  The  plant- 
ers say  that  in  this  locality  not  more  than  one-third  of  a  crop  was  raised  that  year, 
or  a  loss  of  about  66  per  cent,  of  whole  crop. — [George  F.  Webb,  Amite. 

I  have  never  seen  an  estimate,  but  would  say  the  damage  done  to  each  crop,  visited 
as  early  as  August,  would  bo  over  one-third. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

In  1845  loss  was  two- thirds ;  in  1804,  nine-tenths ;  since  then  from  one-fourth  to  little 
or  nothing.  This  season  in  some  places  one-third. — [  J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

About  25  per  cent. — [William  T.  Lewis,  Winston. 

In  1873,  damage  to  my  crop  40  to  50  per  cent. ;  other  years  10  to  25  per  cent.— [Dan- 
iel Cohen,  Wilkinson. 

In  1847  or  '48  tho  loss  was  probably  50  per  cent.,  and  in  one  year  between  1865  and 
'70,  the  loss  was  probably  60  per  cent.  This  year  I  j  udge  the  loss  does  not  exceed  10 
per  cent. — [C.  Welch,  Coviugton. 

It  is  commonly  thought  that  the  loss  of  the  leaves,  which  usually  takes  place  in 
September,  is  an  advantage,  as  it  hastens  the  maturing  and  opening  of  the  bolls.  The 
area  stripped  in  August  is  never  considerable. — [J.  Culbertsou,  Rankiii. 

When  they  commence  early,  one-third ;  late,  one-fourth. — [W.  Spillman,  Clarke. 

At  least  one-half  of  the  ordinary  crop  when  worms  are  bad.  There  are  very  few 
years  that  there  are  no  worms.  In  fact,  I  don't  recollect  that  I  ever  saw  a  single  year 
without  a  few. — [Kenneth  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

It  is  a  difficult  matter  in  general  to  estimate  the  loss  done  to  a  crop.  I  think  though 
in  some  notable  years  with  the  worm,  an  overestimate  has  not  been  made  in  saying 
that  the  loss  was  one-fourth,  and  I  would  not  consider  it  exaggeration  in  hearing  it 
estimated  to  be  one-half. — [John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

In  1825  and  '46  fully  50  per  cent.  In  1867,  '68,  and  '73  probably  25  per  cent.  Many 
other  years  and  for  several  successive  years,  in  certain  localities,  I  have  known  the  crop 
wholly  destroyed  in  July,  so  that  not  enough  seed  was  matured  to  plant  next  year's 
crop.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

The  crop  is  injured  about  one-third.  All  the  young  fruit  is  ruined  by  them.  We 
used  to  calculate  there  was  a  certaiuty  of  most  of  the  blooms  making,  that  came  before 
the  10th  of  September.  Now  we  cannot  count  on  any  after  the  1st  of  August.  Our 
crops  have  fallen  off  at  least  one-third  since  they  have  been  visited  by  the  worms.— [C. 
F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

The  worm  is  so  late  in  making  its  appearance  in  this  latitude  that  it  is  doubtful  if 
they  ever  do  any  injury.  In  fact,  many  farmers  consider  them  as  a  benefit,  as  they  eat 
off  the  top  leaves,  and  letting  the  sun  in  on  the  lower  bolls,  causes  them  to  open  better. 
As  they  have  never  been  looked  on  as  an  evil,  I  have  never  studied  them  closely,  and 
hence  cannot  make  an  intelligent  report. — [  J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

Very  slight.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 


412  REPORT    UPON   COTTON    INSECTS. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

About  three-fourths  of  the  crop  has  been  destroyed  in  most  years  when  worms  have 
been  general,  and  in  some  neighborhoods  seven-eighths  haa  been  lost. — [James  W. 
Grace,  Colleton. 

The  greatest  loss  to  the  county  in  the  aggregate  for  one  year  most  notable  for  the 
cotton-worm  was  about  one-fourth.  On  some  farms,  mostly  in  southern  localities, 
nearly  one-half.— [James  C.  Brown,  Baruwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

It  is  quite  difficult  to  give  even  an  approximation  of  the  loss  sustained  in  the  State 
or  county  during  years  of  severest  visitations,  for,  while  old  large  farms  have  lost 
maybe  one-half  or  "three-fourths,  new  small  farms,  inclosed  by  dense  forests,  have  suf- 
fered very  frequently  not  at  all.  However,  as  we  are  anxious  to  aid  you  all  in  our 
power,  and  as  perhaps  there  are  few  other  sources  in  our  State  from  which  you  could 
bo  expected  to  get  more  accurate  information,  I  will  hazard  '20  per  cent,  as  the  heavi- 
est general  loss  through  the  whole  State.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

In  this  locality  it  was  generally  estimated  to  be  one-half  of  the  crop.  Further  south, 
say  between  latitude  30°,  31°,  and  32°,  where  the  moth  made  its  appearance  in  June, 
the  loss  was  there  estimated  to  be  two-thirds  of  the  crop,  and  in  some  localities  on  low 
bottoms  the  entire  crop  was  lost.  I  cannot  give  you  the  estimate  in  dollars  and  cents, 
but  can  approximate  by  saying  that  the  average  estimate  of  cotton  crops  in  these  local- 
ities is  about  400  pounds  lint  per  acre,  then  worth  15  cents  per  pound.  This  would 
make  these  losses  $60  per  acre,  besides  the  expense  of  making  it.  I  suppose  the  aver- 
age loss  throughout  the  State  in  these  years  would  be  at  least  §25  per  acre. — [J.  W. 
Jackson,  Titus. 

I  cannot  reconcile  myself  to  the  fact  that  any  material  loss  to  the  cotton  crop  in  this 
county  has  been  from  worms,  but  the  insect  has  been  charged  with  all  damages.  I 
have,  in  the  Brazos  bottom,  a  cut  of  cotton  that  had  every  appearance  of  ono  and  a 
half  bale  to  the  acre.  The  worms  stripped  it,  and  left  the  glaring  fact  of  not  over 
one-half  bale  to  the  acre.  The  damage  was  done  by  the  too  favorable  growing  season. 
By  stripping  the  leaves  the  sun  could  reach  the  lower  bolls  and  thereby  save  them 
from  rotting.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Walter. 

In  this  county  there  were  a  great  many  persons  who  did  not  make  more  than  one 
bale  to  the  100  acres,  in  the  year  18G7.  North  of  this  the  crops  were  good,  making  a 
bale  to  the  acre  in  places. — [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

About  50  per  cent.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

The  loss  in  our  county  was  very  slight.  There  were  but  few  fields  that  were  visited, 
and  those  in  isolated  spots  where  the  plant  grew  more  luxuriantly,  and  only  tbe  upper 
branches,  which  were  tender,  were  attacked.  In  fact  I  heard  some  planters  assert  it 
was  a  benefit,  as  it  caused  the  lower  bolls  to  open,  that  otherwise  would  have  rotted. 
The  history  of  the  worm  in  Hunt  County  is  no  criterion.  I  can  gather  no  reliable  in- 
formation of  loss  in  the  State. — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

In  a  probable  crop  of  12,000  bales  from  25  to  50  per  cent,  in  different  years.— [W. 
Barnes,  Cherokee. 

In  1847  two-thirds  of  the  crop  was  lost ;  in  other  years  from  one  fourth  to  one-third. — 
[H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

In  the  year  1863  the  worm,  having  been  very  destructive,  destroyed  about  25  to  30 
per  cent,  of  the  crop ;  in  1868,  the  first  appearance  of  the  worm  having  been  the  earli- 
est on  record,  the  crop  was  nearly  destroyed  during  the  first  part  of  July,  and  injured 
more  than  50  per  cent.  The  same  was  the  case  in  1877,  the  destruction,  owing  to  the 
extensive  application  of  poisonous  preventives,  not  being  so  heavy  as  in  1868. — [  J.  H. 
Krancher,  Austin. 

During  many  years  three-fourths  of  the  cotton  crop  is  destroyed  by  them.  This  is 
the  case  where  the  verdure  is  eaten  up  in  July.  If  eaten  up  in  August  half  a  crop,  and 
in  September  three-fourths  of  a  cotton  crop  is  generally  saved,  unless  diminished  by 
other  causes. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

Three-fourths.— [Reed  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

The  worm  has  got  to  be  a  fixture  upon  us ;  we  have  escaped  but  one  year  for  the  last 
twelve  or  fourteen — that  in  1865,  when  we  had  a  very  dry  summer.  Would  think  the 
loss  to  the  county  one-third,  at  the  very  least  one-fourth.  As  to  the  State  I  have  no 
means  of  knowing,  but  it  is  immense,  as  frequently  whole  sections  are  well-nigh  de- 
stroyed.—[O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

Two-thirds  during  the  years  of  greatest  damage,  though  all  fields  are  not  attacked 
alike.  It  depends  on  the  locality  of  the  field  and  maturity  of  crop. — [  J.  M.  Glasco, 
Upshur. 

In  1868,  loss  one-half  in  this  county ;  1873,  the  same :  in  1874,  loss  one-third,  and  in 
1877,  three-fourths.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS   TO    CIRCULAR.  413 

In  1867  and  1873  loss  was  total;  in  1877  about  75  per  cent.— [S.  B.  Tack aberry, 
Polk. 

For  the  years  1871  and  '73,  25  per  cent  each;  1874  and  '76,  40  per  cent  each. — [A. 
Schroeter,  Burnet. 

I  caunot  make  any  attempt  at  estimates  of  losses,  as  I  have  never  kept  any  data ; 
but  millions  of  dollars  have  been  lost  and  many  farmers  brought  to  ruin  and  pov- 
erty.-[W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 


QUESTION  4r—  State  as  nearly  as  you  can  from  the  records  the  prevailing  direction  and  force 
of  the  ivind  in  your  locality. 

ALABAMA. 

During  February,  March,  and  April  tbe  prevailing  winds  are  from  the  east  and 
south.  After  this  we  have  but  little  wind  except  with  thunder  showers,  which  often 
come  from  the  northwest. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

Northeast  and  southwest. — [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Southeast. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

It  would  be  folly  on  my  part  to  attempt  to  answer  the  question  as  to  the  prevailing 
direction  of  the  wind  during  the  first  six  months  of  the  year,  but  will  give  the  outlines 
of  my  recollections,  namely,  nine  out  of  ten  rainfalls  in  the  county  are  preceded  by 
winds  from  the  Gulf  (southwest) ;  the  remainder  from  the  west  to  northwest,  some- 
times, but  very  rare  from  the  northeast.  Most  winds  not  followed  immediately  by 
rainfall  arc  from  the  west  and  northwest  to  north  ;  this  in  the  months  of  January, 
February,  and  March.  Some  six  years  ago  Dr.  W.  D.  F.  Kelly,  now  of  Demopolis,  Ala- 
bama, was  doing  business  in  this  place  (Evergreen) ;  his  house  was  fronting  on  the 
Mobile  and  Montgomery  Railway,  and  it  was  in  the  month  of  May  or  Juno  that  he 
called  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  we  had  a  pleasant  breeze  from  the  southwest,  be- 
ginning at  ten  o'clock  every  morning,  which  caused  me  to  take  notice  of  a  fact  more 
particular  in  fair  weather.  The  Doctor  was  satisfied  that  it  was  the  Gulf  breeze, 
although  nearly  one  hundred  miles  away.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind,  as  the  moth 
is  oitener  found  hundreds  of  miles  away  from  the  cotton-field,  that  it  is  caused  by  the 
favorable  winds  from  the  south  to  northward,  and  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  Mr.  A. 
R.  Grote  is  very  much  mistaken  when  he  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the  species  per- 
ish each  year  with  the  plant  and  that  they  come  to  the  cotton  States  from  more  south- 
ward countries.  Dr.  R.  A.  Lee,  of  this  place,  who  has  given  much  time  and  attention 
to  the  cotton-worm,  informs  mo  that  he  has  often  seen  the  chrysalis  under  old  logs, 
sticks,  bark,  and  other  pieces  of  wood,  or  in  dry  places,  in  the  months  of  January  and 
February,  where  ho  had  hands  plowing  in  the  old  cotton-field  previously  planted,  and 
that  he  has  seen  the  moth  of  warm  nights  in  the  months  of  January  and  February 
come  in  the  house  to  the  light  of  lamps.  I  have  also  noticed  the  fact  myself.  Taking 
it  for  a  point  of  basis  that  the  17th  day  of  May  is  the  earliest  dute  at  which  the  worm 
has  ever  been  seen  in  this  county,  it  would  show  that  Mr.  Grote's  theory  is  not  in 
harmony  with  the  above  facts.  If  this  reasoning  bo  correct  in  many  warm  springs, 
why  may  not  the  troths  conio  in  great  numbers  before  the  month  of  May,  or  even  in 
June ;  also,  where  are  the  great  cotton-fields  south  or  west  of  the  Gulf  for  them  to 
come  from  ?  The  Mexican  and  Central  States  fail  to  give  any  account  of  the  ravages 
of  worms  destructive  to  the  cotton-plant  (keeping  in  mind  that  the  worm  will  not 
feed  upon  any  other  plant  than  cotton).  And  this  in  corresponding  years  in  which 
the  greatest  damage  has  been  done  us,  looks  to  me  to  be  very  easy  to  find  out  for  the 
years  1S67,  -'68,  -'69,  -'74,  -'75,  and  -'78.  What  damage  was  done  to  the  very  little 
long-staple  cotton  planted  south  of  the  United  States  ?  The  well-known  fact  that  the 
moth  is  rarely  or  never  seen  (save  in  its  hiding  place)  in  the  daytime,  and  that  they 
are  on  the  wing  at  night,  can  be  taken  to  strengthen  or  deny  Mr.  A.  R.  Grote's  posi- 
tion, but  more  strongly  to  deny.  As  the  moth  would  have  to  cross  a  portion  of  the 
Gulf,  if  brought  by  winds  from  the  south  of  the  United  States,  and  as  the  sun- 
light is  repulsive  to  them,  I  would  think,  as  a  natural  consequence,  that  the  moth 
failing  to  reach  land  in  the  night,  would  find  a  watery  grave.  There  is,no  doubt  in 
my  mind  but  that  the  chrysalis  remains  in  a  torpid  state  in  the  fall  depository  or  hid- 
ing place  until  the  warm  sun  in  May  brings  them  to  life,  and  the  moth  comes  out  and 
btarts  upon  his  journey  of  life  and  destruction. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

The  Alabama  and  Conecuh  Rivers  run  south  and  south  west  and  empty  into  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico.  The  cotton-worm  approaches  us  by  traveling  up  these  rivers  and  their 
tributaries. — [George  W.  Thagard,  Creushaw. 

It  is  generally  believed  they  migrate  northward,  coming  from  South  and  East  Flor- 
ida. Whether  this  be  so  or  not  I  can't  say.  They  often  appear  ICO  miles  north  of 
here  sooner  than  here,  and  always  in  the  black  lands  first. — [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

It  is  not  clear  to  my  mind  that  the  moths  migrate,  as  I  have  never  had  any  reliable 
evidence  of  such  migration,  with  an  experience  of  thirty-five  years.  I  have  often 


414  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

seen  them  in  numbers  sufficient  to  attract  attention  during  warm  days  in  February 
and  March,  and  am  satisfied  that  they  had  come  out  from  their  winter  quarters  to  enjoy 
the  warm  sun  and  in  quest  of  food,  and  in  this  manner  many  of  them  perish,  and  no 
large  numbers  are  left  to  propagate  in  the  early  summer ;  and  hence  no  great  destruc- 
tion to  the  cotton  that  season.  Greatest  loss  after  cold,  hard  winter. — [I.  D.  Dries- 
bach,  Baldwin. 

ARKANSAS. 

From  the  southwest.— [Norborne  Young.  Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

All  the  winds  that  continue  for  any  length  of  time  are  either  from  the  east,  south- 
east, northeast,  or  westerly.  The  south  winds  here  are  of  short  duration  generally. — 
[F.  M.  Meekin,  Alachua. 

GEORGIA. 

The  parent  of  the  cotton- worm  migrates  here  from  more  southern  regions,  and  is  a 
fly.  The  egg  is  deposited,  and  when  the  worm  is  grown  it  webs  itself  up  generally  in 
the  leaves  of  the  cotton,  and  is  transformed  into  a  black  worm,  and  in  about  seven  or 
eight  days  there  issues  from  that  a  pale  yellow  butterfly,  as  can  be  seen  by  the  sam- 
ples I  send  you  in  box  marked  A.  That  fly  can  now  be  seen  here  hourly,  migrating 
southward. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

I  do  not  believe  in  the  migration  of  the  moth,  but  think  it  is  sustained  through  the 
winter  in  the  cotton  regions.— [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

The  wind  comes  from  south  and  southeast  during  first  part  of  the  year. — [E.  M. 
Thompson,  Jackson. 

Variable ;  from  south  to  northwest  and  from  northeast  to  south.— [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

From  southwest. — [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

Southeast.— [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

LOUISIANA. 

The  prevailing  winds  are  generally  from  the  south,  southeast,  or  southwest ;  not 
often  from  the  north.— [John  A.  Mary  man,  East  Feliciaua. 

No  opinion  of  an  ordinary  cotton  planter  who  is  not  scientific  nor  at  all  Informed  on 
entomology  or  the  history  of  insect  life  is  worth  much  on  the  subject  of  the  history 
of  the  cotton-worm.  We  are  governed  only  in  forming  our  opinions  by  what  we 
observe  under  our  own  eyes  and  in  our  own  sections.  The  moths  may  possibly  be 
wafted  great  distances  by  favorable  winds,  but  the  general  belief  is  that  the  insect 
hibernates  here,  and  is  to  bo  found  here  now  annually,  no  matter  how  or  where  it  may 
have  come  from  at  some  former  time.  We  do  not  observe  weather  and  seasons  close 
enough  to  tell  accurately  about  winds,  cold,  heat,  rains,  dry  seasons,  and  many  other 
points,  and  no  records  are  kept  of  such  matters,  as  far  as  I'know,  except  latterly  by 
persons  in  government  employ  at  signal-stations,  forts,  arsenals,  or  by  parties  engaged 
in  explorations  or  surveys  ordered  by  the  general  government.  I  cannot,  therefore, 
say  anything  on  these  topics  worth  writing  to  you  more  than  I  have  already  written. 
It  has  been  observed  by  many  planters  hero  within  the  past  fourteen  years  that  many 
places  are  favorable  to  the  appearance  of  the  worm  and  its  after  increase,  and  partic- 
ular spots  or  localities  on  these  different  plantations.  There  are  no  reasons  apparent 
for  this  incident,  and  though  it  is.'generally  and  almost  annually  observed,  I  have  never 
heard  any  plausible  reason  assigned,  nor  any  even  attempted.  These  places  are  scat- 
tered here  and  there  over  our  whole  parish,  with  all  varieties  of  soil,  localities,  condi- 
tions, and  surroundings,  and  still  some  seem  to  bo  selected  as  breeding  spots  for  the 
•worms  every  year— or  landing  places,  if  it  is  true  that  the  moths  are  blown  here  annu- 
ally from  other  parts  of  the  world. — [Douglas  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I  am  convinced  by  long  observation  that  the  moth  is  not  migratory,  for  this  reason  : 
•when  the  worm  has  appeared  in  the  most  frightful  numbers,  /  know  that  they  hatched  in 
the  fields,  and  a,fter  running  their  course  they  died  in  the  cotton-fields  by  the  million. 
They  always  first  appeared  in  small  numbers,  and  increased  for  two  succeeding  gen- 
erations to  the  most  frightful  numbers.  The  wind  was  as  follows :  February,  west 
and  northwest ;  in  March,  south  and  southwest ;  in  April,  south  and  southwest ;  in 
May,  west ;  in  June,  east.— [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

As  to  migration,  they  only  migrate  as  far  as  the  winds  carry  them.— [W.  Spillman, 
Clarke. 

From  the  20th  of  September  to  the  20th  of  March,  or  from  the  autumnal  to  the  ver- 
nal equinox,  the  general  bearing  of  our  winds  is  from  northeast  to  north  and  north- 
west, with  occasional  breezes  from  the  opposite  points  of  the  compass,  and  from  the 
vernal  to  the  autumnal,  from  south  to  southwest,  with  occasional  northwest  and  north 
winds.  During  the  first  period  condensation  appears  to  commence  in  the  cast  and 
brings  us  our  rains  from  that  quarter,  and  during  the  latter  period  from  the  northwest, 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.       (  415 

always  clearing  up  after  a  northwest  current.    The  force  of  the  wind,  except  during 
btorms,  I  would  estimate  at  six  miles  per  hour. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

No  records  at  hand  ;  but  from  any  one's  observations  and  recollections,  most  of  the 
days  in  February  with  moderate  force  from  northeast,  east,  southeast,  and  south. 
During  this  month  almost  every  year  there  is  a  fierce  wind  from  northwest,  sometimes 
once,  ol'tener  perhaps  twice,  rarely  thrice,  of  one  or  two  days'  duration,  and  bringing 
ee%  ere  cold.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

We  rarely  have  more  than  two  or  three  days  when  the  wind  does  not  get  to  the 
south  in  spring  and  summer  months.  A  great  many  theories  are  advanced  about  the 
migration  of  the  moth.  Several  years  ago  some  farmers  believed  they  were  wintered 
in  the  hollow  or  pith  of  both  the  cotton  and  corn  stalk,  and  they  burned  both  to  get 
rid  of  them.  If  that  was  correct,  and  all  burned,  it  might  do  some  good. — [K.  Clarke, 
Chickasaw. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

From  southwest:  force  rarely  reaches  twelve  miles  per  hour,  unless  in  stormy 
weather.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

South  and  southwest. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colletou. 

TENNESSEE. 

I  have  been  a  close  observer  of  this  species  of  the  insect  family  in  question,  and  while 
I  am  aware  that  the  moth  is  occasionally  found  in  parts  of  our  country  remote  from  the 
cotton-belt,  I  am  satisfied  such  cases  are  rare  and  wholly  adventitious.  There  cer- 
tainly is  no  sufficient  evidence  that  there  is  a  system  in  the  migrations  of  this  insect 
or  fly.  While  it  might  be  barely  possible  that  an  erratic  moth  might  make  its  way, 
under  very  extraordinary  circumstances,  from  a  more  southern  State  to  this  State,  and 
propagate  its  species  here,  the  fact  that  after  several  years  of  total  exemption  here,  of 
a  sudden  our  fields  become  infested,  could  not  bo  accounted  for  on  the  migratory  the- 
ory in  the  absence  of  ocular  evidence  of  clouds  of  the  moths  engaged  in  the  northward 
migration,  &c.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

The  wind  blows  mostly  from  the  southeast ;  we  have  some  very  hard  winds  from 
the  southwest  and  west. — [.I.  McMillan,  Decatur. 

TEXAS. 

The  worm  generally  makes  its  appearance  first  in  the  lower  coast  counties  and  appears 
to  work  its  way  up  the  country,  being  favored  by  the  winds  generally  prevailing  at 
the  time,  east,  southeast,  and  south-southwest.  They  almost  invariably  make  their 
first  appearance  in  Brazoria,  Fort  Bend,  Wharton,  and  Colorado  Counties,  lying  east, 
southeast,  and  south  of  this,  then  working  their  way  up  along  the  Colorado  or  Brazos 
River  bottoms  and  plantations.  During  the  last  two  or  three  years  they  generally 
appeared  about  three  or  four  weeks  previous  to  their  appearance  here  eighteen  to 
twenty  miles  south  of  us  on  the  Colorado  River,  then  coming  across  the  prairie  along 
the  edge  of  the  upland  timber  with  the  prevailing  sea  breeze. — [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

South  and  southeast  varied  by  northern,  at  intervals  of  two  or  three  days. — [Saul 
Davis,  Hunt. 

South  to  southeast  in  general ,  fifteen  to  twenty  miles.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

From  south  and  south  by  east  during  the  spring  and  summer  months.  In  May  we 
are  apt  to  have  the  most  constant  and  strongest  winds  from  the  south;  the  stronger 
the  winds  the  less  it  rains.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

The  prevailing  direction  of  the  wind  in  Southern  Texas  is  constantly  from  the  south; 
i.  e.,  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  Sometimes  we  have  a  north  wind  for  two  or  three  days, 
blowing  usually  at  the  rate  of  twenty  miles. — [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

Southeast  in  fair,  pleasant  weather,  east  in  rainy,  and  north  in  cold  weather. — [A. 
Underwood,  Brazoria. 

My  observation  is  that  they  make  their  appearance  in  the  spring,  and  are  found  in 
bottom  lands  that  are  heavily  timbered  first,  around  drift-logs,  &c.,  and  remain  for 
some  time  in  the  timber  and  high,  rank  weeds,  always  showing  more  just  after  a  rain. 
— [Natt  Holman,  Fayetto. 

1  have  no  doubt  that  the  moth  is  at  times,  if  not  habitually,  migratory,  as  I  have 
observed  it  to  appear  in  large  numbers  all  of  a  sudden,  and  in  seasons  when  previous 
to  their  arrival  the  conditions  for  their  development  and  increase  had  been  very  un- 
favorable, so  much  so  that  it  was  a  hard  task  to  find  a  half  a  dozen  of  them  in  a  field 
of  ten  acres,  while  the  next  morning  the  air  was  full  of  them,  the  wind  blowing  at 
that  time  the  same  that  it  does  nearly  all  the  year  round,  from  southeast. — [A.  Schroe- 
ter,  Burnet. 


416  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

QUESTION  4  a. — Direction  and  force  of  the  wind  in  FelM-uary. 

ALABAMA. 

From  the  north,  and  frequently  strong. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

South,  west,  and  southwest  in  warm  spells  ;  if  cool,  the  wind  is  north. — [J.  C.  Matth- 
ews, Dale. 

In  1876,  the  most  disastrous  worm  year  I  know  of,  winds  east  and  southeast. — [  J.  W. 
Da  Bose,  Montgomery. 

Variable,  though  mostly  a  stiff'  wind  from  the  north  and  northeast. — [M.  W.  Hand, 
Greene. 

Southeast. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

The  wind  generally  comes  from  the  west. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

Wind  in  February  is  variable  and  from  all  points  of  the  compass. — [R.  S.  Williams, 
Montgomery. 

The  winds  in  February  are  generally  from  the  south  and  southwest  during  the  warm 
weather  of  the  month,  veering  around  to  the  west  and  northwest,  and  with  consider- 
able force. — [J.  N.  Giluiore,  Sumter. 

From  southeast  to  northwest. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

February  prevailing  winds  southwest  21,  southeast  17. — [H.  Tutweiler,  Hale. 

February,  northwest  when  cold,  west  when  cool  and  dry,  east  and  south  when  rainy 
aud  disagreeable. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

From  south  and  southwest ;  sometimes  from  east ;  seldom  from  north  or  west. — [T. 
S.  Edwards,  Pope. 
North  and  northeast.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

Hard,  from  the  west.— [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 
Northerly.— [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

From  south  to  northwest. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

From  northwest. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

February  the  wind  comes  from  the  south  and  southeast. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

Generally  from  the  north  and  northeast. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

Northwest.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

Mostly  from  northwest.— [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

LOUISIANA. 

The  prevailing  winds  in  February  are  from  the  north  and  northwest. — [John  A.  Ma- 
ry man,  East  1'eliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

February  is  characterized  by  no  particular  prevailing  current,  but  varying  from  one 
point  to  another.  Tornadoes  are  not  nufrequent  in  this  month,  and  their  course  is  in- 
variably from  west  to  east. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

North,  velocity  varying  from  one  to  fifteen  miles  per  hour. — [C.  Welch,  Coviugton. 

From  north  and  east. — [Kenneth  Clark,  Chickasaw. 

North  and  northeast. — [  J.  W.  Bnrch,  Jefferson. 

From  west  and  north. — [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

Mostly  east  and  southeast. — [W.  Spillman,  Clarke. 

I  do  not  think  the  winds  from  the  south  are  sufficiently  strong  to  mitigate  or  coun- 
teract the  trade- winds.  The  prevailing  direction  of  the  wind  in  July  is  east  and  south- 
east.— [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

South  and  southwest.— [F.  J.  Smith,  Halifax. 
Northwest.— [J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

From  northeast.— [Paul  S.  Folder,  Oraugeburgh. 
South  and  southwest. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colletou. 

February,  from  west  and  northwest;  occasionally  gently  from  the  south. — [James 
C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

If  February  is  mild  and  pleasant  the  wind  blows  mostly  from  the  south,  southeast, 
and  southwest,  and  in  a  cold  month  the  wind  blows  north,  northeast,  and  northwest. — 
[John  McMillan.  Decatur. 

North  and  northeast,  latter  predominating.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  417 


Our  winds  as  a  rule  from  the  south.  The  northers  spring  Tip,  but  last  only  three 
days  at  most.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

i  .South  and  southeast,  varied  at  intervals  by  wind  from  the  north  that  continued  two 
or  three  days. — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

Winds  stiff  and  change  frequently,  and  come  from  all  points  of  the  compass. — [O. 
H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

February,  1851,  nineteen  days  from  the  south  ;  the  remainder  from  the  north  a-nd 
northwest;  Ia62,  fifteen  days  from  the  south  and  southwest,  the  remainder  from  the 
north  and  northeast. — [  J.M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

East.— [H.  J.  H.  Breusing,  Bowie. 

South  three  to  six  days  ;  then  north  three  or  four  days. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

North. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Alternately  south  and  north. — [A.  Schroeter,  Burnet. 

The  prevailing  winds  in  February  are  mostly  northeast  and  south,  seldom  changing 
to  west.  The  uoi'th  winds  are  generally  dry  and  cold.  East  wind  is  almost  always 
rain  wind  ;  the  same  southeast. — [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

From  the  south,  and  fifteen  miles  an  hour.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

From  southwest  and  northwest. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

The  most  general  course  of  the  winds  in  this  locality  is  from  the  south  and  east. — 
[S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

The  general  direction  of  the  winds  in  this  locality  is,  in  February,  west  and  northwest ; 
in  changes,  such  as  rain  or  snow,  invariably  north  or  northeast.  From  the  middle  to  the 
last  of  the  month  the  wind  drops  further  south  and  southwest ;  in  case  of  change  to 
rain  or  "  wet  spell"  invariably  east  and  northeast,  clearing  from  the  north.  All  the 
mild  weather  in  this  month  has  a  brisk  southwest  wind.  The  force  of  the  wind  south 
and  southwest  is  from  a  mild  breeze  to  a  gale. — [  J.  W.  Jackson. 

In  spring,  most  from  the  south ;  in  summer,  mostly  south ;  fall,  south  and  east,  oc- 
casionally north;  winter,  south  and  generally  north.— [Natt  Holmau,  Fayette. 


QUESTION  4 1.— Direction  and  force  of  the  icind  in  the  month  of  March. 

ALABAMA. 

Southeast.— [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

East  and  southeast  in  1«7G. — [J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

Generally  from  east  to  west. — [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

From  the  east  and  north,  frequently  changing,  and  often  violent. — [C.  M.  Howard, 
Autauga. 

For  the  greater  part  of  this  month  a  strong  wind  from  the  north  and  northeast.— 
[M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

The  winds  in  March  are  more  generally  from  the  southeast  and  south,  except  what 
is  called  the  March  wind,  which  blows  very  strong  from  the  west  and  northwest. — 
[J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

West  and  northwest.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

From  southeast  to  northwest. — [  J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

March,  southeast,  28  ;  southwest,  24.— [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

March  is  our  blowing  month,  when  winter  dallies  in  the  lap  of  spring.  Winds 
southwest  and  south. — -[Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

South  and  southwest,  very  little  from  north  or  east. — [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 
South  and  southeast.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

Very  hard,  from  the  west  and  northwest. — [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 
Variable,  north  and  southerly.— [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Most  of  the  time  from  the  south  and  southwest,  especially  if  it  be  a  warm  month.— 
[S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

Mostly  from  west. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 
South  and  northwest. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 
Northwest.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 
Mostly  from  south  and  east.— [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 
Northwest. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

27  C  I 


418  EEPOET   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

LOUISIANA. 

During  March  and  April  the  prevailing  wind  is  south  and  west,  lasting  sometimes  a 
week,  strong  enough  and  long  enough  to  bring  a  moth  from  South  America,  I  should 
think.  I  have  no  record  of  the  wind,  but  if  the  moths  are  brought  here  by  the  wind, 
which  I  think  they  are,  it  is  during  the  mouths  of  March,  April,  and  May. — [H.  B. 
Shaw,  Concordia. 

In  March  from  the  south. — [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

In  March  we  have  south  to  southwest  winds,  met  by  counter  condensing  currents 
from  northeast  to  north  and  consequent  heavy  raius,  especially  during  the  latter  part 
of  the  month,  clearing  off  with  cool  northwesterly  winds.  The  average  force  of  the 
wind  greater. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

March  winds  variable  southwest  and  northwest  with  considerable  force,  oftener 
northeast,  and  still  of tener  southeast  and  south ;  sometimes  very  strong  for  several 
successive  days. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

Prevailing  winds  south,  maximum  velocity  probably  15  miles  per  hour. — [C.  Welch, 
Covington. 

South.— [Kenneth  Clark,  Chickasaw. 

North.— [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

East  and  southeast. — [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

Southwest,  northwest,  and  north :  when  from  southeast  the  hardest. — [ W.  Spillmau. 
Clarke. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

Northwest. — [ J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 
Northeast.— £F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

South  and  southwest,  often  northeast  and  southeast. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

From  every  direction. — [Paul  S.  Felder,  Orangeburgh. 

March,  west,  northwest,  and  north. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

North,  northwest,  and  west,  northwest  predominating. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 
Mostly  from  northwest. — [John  McMillan,  Decatur. 

TEXAS. 

Our  east  and  southeast  winds  will  as  surely  bring  rain  as  the  norther  brings  cold.— 
[P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

South  to  southeast  15  to  30  miles,  with  an  occasional  norther  30  to  40  and  sometimes 
CO  miles.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

March,  1860,  the  wind  blew  sixteen  days  from  the  south  and  fifteen  days  from  the 
north;  March,  1861,  nineteen  days  from  the  south,  the  remainder  west  and  north- 
west.— [  J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Northwest.— [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Miller. 

South,  south  by  east,  and  south  by  west.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

Changeable.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

From  the  south,  sometimes  more  than  the  usual  rate. — [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

In  the  month  of  March  northers  are  less  frequent,  east  and  south  \%  ind  mostly  prevail- 
ing ;  if  a  norther  occurs,  it  is  generally  followed  by  frost.  A  sleet  of  several  days' 
duration  occurred  as  late  as  the  15th  of  March,  1857.— [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

Generally  from  west. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

South  and  east. — [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

South,  and  blowing  like  blazes. — [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

March  gives  us  about  the  same  direction  and  force  of  wind  as  February,  except  from 
the  10th  to  the  22d  high  winds,  north  and  northwest.  The  latter  part  of  tho  month 
gives  high  .brisk  winds  from  south-southwest,  -with  sudden  shifts  to  the  northwest. — 
[J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


QUESTION  4  c. — The  direction  and  force  of  the  wind  in  the  month  of  April. 

ALABAMA. 

West  and  northwest.— [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

Variable  and  light. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

From  west  to  northeast. — [J.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Southeast. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

Generally  a  steady  cool  breeze  from  the  north. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 


APPENDIX   II  -  ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  419 

East  and  southeast  in  187G.  —  [  J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

The  wind  in  the  month  of  April  is  generally  from  the  southeast  and  south.  —  [J.  N. 
Gilmore,  Sumter. 

Variable,  but  mostly  from  southwest.  —  [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

From  southwest  to  northeast.  —  [  J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

April,  southeast,  32.—  [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

April  showers  are  proverbial.  And  this  year  the  "borrowing  days"  did  not  forget  to 
blow  from  the  west  and  southwest.  And  the  freshet  came  on  the  llth  instant.  No 
cyclone  here,  but  pretty  hard  wind.  Cyclone  in  Lee  County,  and  at  Fort  Gaines, 
Ga.,  with  considerable  damage.  Some  loss  of  life.  —  [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 


ARKANSAS. 

rds,  Po 
South  and  southeast.—  [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 


South  and  southeast.—  [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 
.—  [E.  T. 


Variable  and  gentle.— [J.  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 
Chiefly  south ;  at  times  north. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Variable,  from  land  to  sea. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 
Southeast.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth 
April,  from  the  west  mostly.— [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 
From  southeast.— [Timothy  Tussell,  Coffee. 
From  east  and  northeast. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

Variable  and  moderate ;  moves  from  south  to  north  by  the  way  of  the  west,  then 
from  northeast  to  south. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

LOUISIANA. 

In  April,  from  south  and  southeast.— [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 
MISSISSIPPI. 

Southeast  and  south. — [  J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

From  all  the  points  of  the  compass,  with  little  force.— [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

South.— [Kenneth  Clark,  Chickasaw. 

Prevailing  winds  south,  maximum  velocity  10  miles. — [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

With  moderate  force  from  some  southerly  point. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

Sooth.— [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

Southwest  and  generally,  about  Easter,  north. — [W.  Spillman,  Clark. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

Northwest  and  southwest. — [J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 
Southwest.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

Southwest  and  northwest.— [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

West. — [Paul  S.  Felder,  Oraugeburgh. 

April,  south  and  southwest  and  southeast.— [James  C.  Brown,  Barn  well. 

TENNESSEE. 

From  the  southwest  mostly.    We  have  some  very  hard  storms  from  that  direction  in 
the  spring. — [John  McMillan,  Decatur. 
Northeast  and  west  equally. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

In  April,  I860,  we  had  twenty-two  days  from  south  and  southwest,  and  eight  north, 
northwest,  and  northeast ;  in  1861,  fifteen  days  south,  southeast,  and  southwest. — [J. 
M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

South  by  east  and  south.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

East.— [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Miller. 

Southeast.— [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

South. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Southeast  to  southwest ;  15  to  25  miles. — [ W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

April,  mostly  south,  southeast,  and  southwest  winds  prevail;  an  occasional  north 
wind  occurs,  frequently  the  forerunner  of  a  late  spring  frost.  In  the  year  1859,  the 
latest  spring  frost,  in  my  recollection,  occurred  on  the  night  of  the  24th  April,  killing 
corn  badly,  but  not  injuring  cotton  much  ;  that  year  the  worm  did  little  damage,  a 
heavy  crop  being  made.  The  year  previous,  a  norther  came  up  on  the  llth  of  April, 


420  REPORT   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

on  the  morning  of  the  12th  several  inches  of  snow  covered  the  ground;  also  a  good 
cotton  year. — [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

Southwest.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Southeast. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

South  and  east. — [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

April,  south  and  east. —  [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

April  gives  us  balmy  breezes  from  the  soutb  ;  high  winds  from  southwest  continue 
but  a  few  days,  then  suddenly  shift  to  northwest  with  rain ;  continued  rain  gives  east 
and  northeast  winds.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


QUESTION  4d.  —  The  direction  and  force  of  tlie  wind  in  the  month  of  May. 

ALABAMA. 

Southeast.—  [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

Wind  usually  quiet  and  rarely  strong  or  continuous  from  one  direction  many  days. 
—  [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

A  pleasant  breeze  from  the  south.  —  [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

From  south  to  northeast.  —  [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

South  and  west.  —  [J.  C.  Mathews,  Dale. 

In  187G,  in  May,  east  and  southeast  winds  prevailed.  —  [  J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

From  south  and  southwest.  —  [  J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

South  and  southwest.—  [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

Winds  in  the  month  of  May  are  generally  from  the  southeast  and  south.  —  [J.  N. 
Gilmore,  Sumter. 

South  and  west  of  south.—  [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

From  southwest  to  northeast.  —  [  J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

May,  southeast,  26  ;  southwest,  17.—  [H.  Tutw'iier,  Hale. 

The  winds  are  generally  nothing  more  than  cooling  zephyrs,  and  are  from  the  west 
when  dry  ;  south  and  southwest  when  cloudy.  —  [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

South,  southeast,  and  southwest.—  [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 
South  and  southeast.—  [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

From  the  southeast  and  east,  gentle  breezes.—  John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 
Northerly.—  [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

From  south  to  northwest  and  from  northeast  to  east  and  south  ;  there  are  more  east 
winds  in  May  than  in  any  other  month.  —  [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

The  wind'is  changeable,  from  south  and  west  generally;  occasionally  from  the 
east.  —  £E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

From  southwest,  if  seasonable,  and  if  not,  generally  from  the  east.  —  [S.  P.  Odom, 
Dooly. 

Variable.  —  [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

South,  cast,  and  west.—  [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

South  winds  mostly.  —  [W.  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

In  May  the  winds  are  from  the  south  and  southeast.  —  [John  A.Maryman,  East  Feli- 
ciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Except  during  occasonal  rain-storms,  the  winds  are  gentle  south  and  southwest 
breezes.—  [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

Winds  usually  gentle,  sometimes  with  much  force  ;  as  in  April  from  southeast,  soutb, 
to  southwest  mostly.  —  [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

Southwest  ;  velocity  8  miles  per  hour.  —  [C.  \Velch,  Covington. 

South.—  [Kenneth  Clark,  Chickasaw. 

Southeast,  south,  and  southwest.  —  [J.  W.  Bnrch,  Jefferson. 

South.—  [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

Mostly  south  and  southwest.—  [W.  Spillman,  Clark. 


NORTH  CAROLINA. 

fax. 
Southwest.—  [J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 


Southwest.—  [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 
.—  [J.  Ev 


APPENDIX   II — ANSWERS   TO   CIRCULAE.  421 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

Southwest.— [Paul  S.  Felder,  Orangeburgh. 

Southwest  and  south.— [  James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

May.— South  and  southwest  and  west.— [  James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

We  have  some  very  hard  winds  from  the  south,  southeast,  and  southwest. — [John 
McMillan,  Decatur. 
Northwest  and  west,  latter  predominating. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Southeast.— [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

In  1860,  south  winds  twenty-five  days,  and  six  days  west,  northwest,  and  north- 
east. In  1801,  twenty  days  south  wind,  southeast,  and  southwest,  the  remainder  north, 
northwest,  and  northeast. — [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Southeast. — [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

South  and  moderately  brisk  to  stiff  breeze  nearly  all  day.— [0.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Wash- 
ington. 

South.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

In  May  the  south  breeze  is  the  prevailing  wind,  with  an  occasional  west  wind,  which 
occurs  mostly  in  the  shape  of  severe  thunder-storms,  sometimes  doing  much  damage 
by  their  violence,  and  washing,  heavy  rains. — [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

From  tho  south,  with  the  usual  rate  of  summer  winds. — [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

Southwest.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Southeast. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

South  and  east. — [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

Southerly.— [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

Tho  month  of  May  gives  us  south  and  southwest  winds,  with  occasional  shiftings  to 
north  and  northwest  in  time  of  rain  ;  and  if  continued  rains  from  tho  east  and  south- 
east, brisk  winds  from  the  south  at  least  three  days  out  of  every  seven. — [  J.  W.  Jack- 
sou,  Titus. 


QUESTION  4  e. — The  direction  and  force  of  the  icind  in  June. 

ALABAMA. 

In  June,  no  continuous  current  for  any  length  of  time  from  any  point  of  the  com- 
pass.— [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

East  and  southeast. — [  J.  W.  Du  BOSP,  Montgomery. 

South  and  west. — [  J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

Pleasant  breeze  from  the  south;  much  warmer  than  during  May. — [M.  W.  Hand, 
Greene. 

From  south  to  northeast. — [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Southeast.— [Knox,  Miuge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

South  and  southwest. — [  J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

South,  southeast,  and  southwest. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

lu  June,  winds  from  south  and  southwest. — [J.  N.  Gilrnore,  Sumter. 

From  south,  gentle. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

Winds  generally  from  the  west  when  dry,  as  in  May ;  and  from  the  south  or  south- 
west when  rainy  or  cloudy. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

South.- [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 
South.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

From  the  east,  gentle.— [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 
South. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

From  the  southwest.— [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

From  south  and  west. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

From  west  and  south. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

South  and  southwest.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

Variable.— [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

Southeast  and  west.— [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

LOUISIANA. 

Generally  in  June  the  winds  are  from  the  south. — [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 


422  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 


MISSISSIPPI. 

In  June,  winds  daily  with  moderate  force  from  south-southwest  mostly.  Same  in 
July  and  August.  In  these  last  sometimes  a  cyclone  of  several  days,  approaching 
from  east  or  southeast  and  closing  from  northwest.  Generally  the  winds  are  so  regu- 
lar daily  from  May  to  September,  so  like  the  sea  breeze,  that  we  speak  of  them  as  sea 
breezes. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

No  prevailing  winds,  but  thunder-clouds,  forming  and  moving  from  all  points  of 
the  compass,  preceded  and  accompanied  by  more  or  less  rain. — Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson, 
Madison. 

Southwest;  velocity  8  miles  per  hour. — [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

South.— [Kenneth  Clark,  Chickasaw. 

South  and  southwest. — [  J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

South.— [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

South,  southwest,  and  northwest.— [W.  Spillman,  Clark. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

Southwest. — [J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

South,  southwest,  and  south  by  west. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 
South  winds. — [Paul  S.  Felder,  Orangeburgh. 

June ;  same  as  May,  with  occasional  east  winds  (generally  southwest). — [James  C. 
Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

West,  southwest,  and  south  rarely.    Southwest  predominating. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M. 
D.,  Perry. 
Some  very  hard  winds  from  the  south  and  southwest. — [John  McMillan,  Decatur. 

TEXAS. 

South. — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

In  June,  i860,  twenty-two  days  of  south  wind,  three  east,  and  two  north,  the  remain- 
der without  wind;  1861,  twenty-two  days  south  wind,  the  rest  shifting  about.  The 
average  force  about  three  miles  per  hour.  Our  prevailing  winds  for  three- fourths  of  the 
year  are  from  the  south.  There  is  scarcely  a  day  without  some  wind,  beginning  at  8  or 
9  a.  m.  and  continuing  till  5  or  6  p.  m.;  then  the  wind  lulls.— [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Usually  about  six  weeks  from  the  15th  of  June  to  last  July  or  earlier,  variable  winds 
and  squally  weather  (thunder-squalls),  after  which  the  weather  settles  into  regular 
south,  southeast,  or  southwest  winds,  with  from  two  weeks'  to  two  months'  drought. — 
[W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

South,  southeast,  and  southwest.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Sauth.— [II.  J.  II.  Brensing,  Miller. 

South,  moderately  brisk.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

Continuous  rains  from  the  east  and  southeast,  heavy  and  sudden  thunder-storms 
from  the  south  and  west ;  the  prevailing  wind  is  mostly  south. — [  J.  H.  Kancher,  Austin. 

Southwest.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Southeast. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

South  and  east.— [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

South  and  southwest. — Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

Jane  gives  us  south  winds,  shifting  to  southwest  and  west  in  case  of  rain  if  the 
weather  is  dry,  the  winds  are  invariably  south,  breeze  mild  generally,  but  often  brisk 
and  boisterous  three  or  four  days  before  a  rain. — [  J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


QUESTION  4/. —  Whether,  in  your  opinion,  there  are  winds  from  the  south  that  are  sufficiently 
strong  and  constant  to  counteract  the  prevail  ing  trade-winds  which  arc  toward  the  equator  f 

ALABAMA. 

I  can  scarcely  credit  the  suggestion  that  the  wind  is  sufficiently  strong  or  continuous 
from  the  south  to  have  much  influence  in  the  transportation  of  the  moth. — [C.  M. 
Howard,  Autauga. 

Yes. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

It  is  my  opinion  it  does  not,  or  if  it  does  is  not  of  long  duration.  One  thing,  how- 
ever, is  true,  that  in  the  summer  and  autumn,  should  we  have  a  constant  breeze  from 
the  south  for  twenty-four  hours,  we  will  as  certainly  have  rain,  whether  the  current  is 
strong  or  not.  The  south  winds  always  bring  rain  in  twenty-four  to  thirty-six  hours.— 
[II.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

While  I  think  the  wind  is  often  strong  enough  from  the  south  to  drive  before  it  the 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  423 

caterpillar-fly,  I  am  not  at  all  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  in  that  way  they  get  here 
(unless  it  be  tho  fly  of  the  army  worm);  and  while  I  am  not  sufficiently  informed  of 
the  state  they  continue  in  during  the  winter,  or  the  transformations  they  may  pass 
thi<mgh,  I  believe  they  exist  here. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Trade-winds  have  but  little  influence  in  this  part  of  Alabama. — [J.  R.  Rogers,  Bul- 
lock. 

Should  think  not.— [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

South  winds  but  seldom  prevail  for  longer  than  twenty-four  hours;  occasionally  for 
two  days,  with  decided  prevalence. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

I  think  in  this  section  they  are. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

I  am  of  tho  opinion  that  there  are  winds  from  the  south  to  counteract  the  trade- 
winds.— [J.  N.  Gilmore,  Snmter. 

I  think  there  are.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

There  are  no  storms  of  wind  sufficiently  strong  to  affect  the  trade-winds,  unless  it 
may  be  the  equinoctial  gales,  which  usually,  in  the  last  days  of  September  or  lirst  of 
October,  are  pretty  severe,  and  most  commouly  come  from  the  northeast  with  rain. — 
[Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

Under  the  theory  of  its  gradual  spreading  from  south  to  north,  we  may  suppose  a 
seaboard  source  of  infection,  and  one  from  the  southwest  and  the  State  of  Alabama. — 
[A.  R.  Grote. 

I  have  no  doubt  but  at  times,  more  particularly  in  times  of  great  blows,  that  the 
winds  blowing  from  the  Gulf  inland  will  be  sufficient  to  counteract  the  prerailiny  trade- 
irinds,  but  not  one  time  in  ten  days  or  twenty  days  does  this  happen,  as  all  the  winds, 
or  nine  out  of  ten  from  the  southwest,  bring  rain  ;  we  having  after  July  little 
or  no  rain  until  frost,  wind  is  most  of  the  time  from  west  to  northwest. — [P.  D.  Bowles, 
Conecuh. 

There  are,  from  June  to  September. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

Do  not  think  the  winds  now  have  any  effect  on  the  moth. — [H.  A.  Stoleuwerck, 
Perry. 

Trade-winds  do  not  affect  us.  The  wind  is  from  every  point  of  the  compass.  During 
summer  the  wind  is  mostly  from  the  southwest. — [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

No.— [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

I  can't  say  definitely.  I  think  we  have,  as  during  February  and  March  the  winds 
blow  down  a  great  many  trees  here.  The  southern  border  of  this  country  is  within 
50  miles  of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  hence  we  have  heavy  Gulf  winds. — [  J.  C.  Matthews, 
Dale. 

ARKANSAS. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  there  are  winds  from  the  south  of  sufficient  force  and  length 
to  counteract  the  trade-winds  blowing  toward  the  equator. — [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 
I  do. — [Norbome  Young,  Columbia. 
Yes.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

In  this  section  we  have  no  worms,  I  think  because  we  have  not  cultivated  much 
cotton.  If  the  northern  wind  from  the  cotton  districts  blew  them  here  they  would  have 
no  respect  for  the  size  of  our  fields.  If  the  south  winds  carry  them  up  into  Alabama, 
they  must  be  advised  of  the  scarcity  of  forage  here  and  pass  over  us.  I  am  satisfied 
the  moth  commences  his  ravages  often  within  twenty  feet  from  where  it  was  hatched. 
Winds  no  doubtoften  move  them  short  distances  from  where  they  start  into  new-ground 
cotton  where  none  ever  lived  before. — [  J.  M.  McGehee,  Santa  Rosa. 

None. — [John  B.  Carriu,  Taylor. 

No  trade- winds. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

The  sea  voyage  from  Jacksonville  was  rather  rough,  and  I  found  it  impossible  to  do 
any  writing  on  board.  When  we  were  opposite  Jupiter  Light,  Florida,  about  six  miles 
from  the  shore,  two  Lepidoptera  came  on  board,  an  Arctia  nais  (?)  and  a  Microlepid- 
opteron.  The  officers  of  the  steamer  told  me  that  sometimes  many  ''flies"  came  on 
board  in  favorable  nights,  as  well  on  the  coast  of  Florida  as  from  these  islands.  This 
shows  how  easily  insects  can  be  carried  to  and  from  the  Bahamas. — [E.  A.  Schwarz, 
Nassau,  New  Providence,  Bahamas. 

GEORGIA. 

I  think  that  the  north  winds  come  in  so  constant  and  so  heavy  that  the  moths  are 
very  likely  brought  from  that  direction.  Very  often  in  stormy  weather  in  spring  and 
summer  we  find  various  kinds  of  strange  birds  and  fowls  blown  here  and  left ;  they 
are  foreign  to  our  climate,  and  it  is  more  than  likely  that  the  regular  cotton-worm 
comes  in  from  that  quarter. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

I  cannot  say  that  there  are,  though  we  have  some  very  strong  winds  from  the  south, 
but  our  most  disastrous  winds  are  from  the  southwest.— [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

My  impression  is  that  south  winds  are  very  gentle  universally.  East  and  northwest 
winds  only  are  sufficiently  strong  to  drive  the  moths  before  them. — [A.  J.  Cheves, 
Macon. 


424  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

i 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  there  are  no  winds  from  the  south  strong  enough  to  coun- 
teract  the  prevailing  trade-winds. — [S.  P.  Odoin,  Dooly. 
Not  often  ;  only  occasionally. — [  W.  A.  Harris,  Worth. 
I  do  not  believe  there  are. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 
It  is  thought  not.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

LOUISIANA. 

I  think  there  are.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

I  do  not  think  there  are  winds  from  the  south  that  are  sufficiently  strong  and  con- 
stant to  counteract  the  trade-winds. — [John  A.  Marymau,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI, 

.  The  trade-winds  referred  to  are  those  along  the  Gulf  stream,  off  the  Atlantic  coast 
I  presume,  and  have  nothing  to  do  with  our  inland  currents ;  but  if  referring  to  the 
equatorial  and  polar  currents,  that  form  the  trade-winds  near  the  equator,  I  do  not 
think  that  there  are  any  southerly  winds  in  this  latitude  that  are  strong  enough  to 
counteract  the  polar  current  moving  towards  the  equator.— [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Mad- 
ison. 

There  are  certainly  such  winds  here. — [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

I  do  not  believe  there  are.  The  winds  are  rarely  very  strong,  but  constant. — [Ken- 
neth Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

Yes ;  beyond  a  doubt  nearly  every  year,  perhaps  I  should  say  every  year,  such  winds 
occur.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

Hardly  think  so;  we  generally  have  light  winds. — [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

Our  strongest  winds  are  all  from  the  south. — [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

Rarely  ever  have  strong  winds  from  the  south  long  at  a  time;  our  strongest  winds 
are  from  southwest  and  southeast. — [W.  Spillman,  Clark. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

Yes. — [ J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

During  June,  July,  and  August  we  have  strong  south  winds,  beginning  about  eight 
o'clock  in  the  morning  and  lasting  until  late  at  night,  plenty  strong  enough  to  bring 
moths  from  a  great  distance. — [Paul  S.  Felder,  Orangeburg. 

Only  in  the  months  of  February,  March,  and  September. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colle- 
ton. 

In  this  locality  the  winds  from  the  south  are  sufficient  to  counteract  the  trade- 
winds. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barn  well. 

TENNESSEE. 

Prevailing  winds  of  July  are  from  southwest  and  south,  latter  predominating.  I 
cannot  remember  to  have  observed  winds  from  the  south  sufficiently  strong  to  have 
couteracted  the  prevailing  trade-winds  toward  the  equator. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D., 
Perry. 

There  are  times  when  our  sonth  and  southwest  winds  are  strong  enough  to  counter- 
act any  other. — [John  McMillan,  Decatur. 

TEXAS. 

The  south  winds  many  years  ago,  I  believe,  were  more  frequent  and  stronger  than 
later  years;  hence  I  am  satisfied  it  rains  more  frequently  and  more  rain  falls  through 
the  year  than  it  did  thirty  and  thirty-five  years  ago.  I  do  not  think  the  north  winds 
prevail  to  that  extent  during  the  winter  months,  neither  are  they  generally  as  cold.  I 
cannot  say  with  a  degree  of  certainty  whether  the  south  winds  are  sufficiently  strong 
to  counteract  the  trade- winds  which  are  toward  the  equator. — [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Wash- 
ington. 

These  are  caused  by  the  large  surface  of  prairie  in  the  State,  which  turn  our  north- 
east trade,  or  what  would  be  such,  to  south-southeast  or  southwest. — [W.  Barnes, 
Cherokee. 

We  are  too  far  inland  to  be  affected  by  trade-winds ;  our  winds  are  more  like  sea- 
breezes.  We  are  about  2.~>0  miles  inland.— [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Yes.— [Saul  Davis,  Hunt. 

There  are.— [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Miller. 

They  are  strong  and  constant  enough. — [Reed  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Do  not  believe  our  winds  are  sufficiently  stroug  or  continuous  to  have  any  effect  on 
the  trade-winds.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

I  think  winds  from  the  south  are  strong  enough  to  counteract  winds  toward  the 
equator.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardiu. 

In  some  years  the  winds  are  sufficiently  strong  to  have  that  effect.  I  have  noticed 
that  the  strong  winds  from  the  south  and  southwest  generally  occur  in  a  dry  year. 


APPENDIX    II— ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  425 

Particularly  constant  west  winds  are  generally  a  sign  of  continuous  dry  weather.— 
[J.  H.  Kraucber,  Austin. 

They  are.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

Decidedly  so  here.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Ours  are  doubtless  the  trade  winds,  being  on  the  border  of  the  torrid  zone. — [A.  Un- 
derwood, Brazoria. 

I  think  there  is.— [S.  Harbert,  Alleyton. 

Yes ;  the  wind  in  this  locality,  in  June  and  July,  is  invariably  from  the  south  and 
southwest,  and  at  times  constant  and  strong  except  in  case  of  heavy  rains ;  then  it 
shifts  to  the  northwest  and  but  for  a  short  time.  We  have  no  prevailing  wave  winds 
here  at  this  season  of  the  year.— [ J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


QUESTION  4#. 

The  prevailing  direction  of  the  wind  from  July  till  frost. 

ALABAMA. 

Am  not  certain,  but  think  from  south  and  southwest  during  July  and  August,  and 
west  and  north  during  September. — [  J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

South,  west  of  south,  and  west.— [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

The  wind  in  July  is  generally  from  south  and  west,  in  August  and  until  frost  con- 
tinually changing."—  [J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

The  wind  blows  but  little  until  the  approach  of  fall,  when  the  prevailing  direction 
is  east.— [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

From  the  south.— [John  D.  Johnston,  Snmter. 

West  and  northwest.— I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

From  south. — [  J.  N.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

The  prevailing  winds  of  summer  are  very  much  like  those  of  June,  increased  some- 
times to  thunder-storms,  which  soon  pass  off.  Wet  weather  promotes  the  multiplica- 
tion of  the  cotton- worms.  The  weather  becomes  showery  in  August  and  impedes  very 
much  the  application  of  poison. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

Generally  from  northwest.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

From  west  to  northwest. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

West  and  northwest.— [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

East  and  southeast. — [J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

The  wind  during  the  time  indicated  veers  from  one  point  to  another  so  often  as  rarely 
to  be  debtor  to  itself.  In  other  words  it  is  so  variable  that  we  have  no  wind  of  long 
duration  from  any  quarter. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Various  directions. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

From  south  and  southwest. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

Southeast. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

East  and  west. — [  J.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

They  are  only  occasionally  from  the  south.— [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

In  our  locality  the  wind  has  no  constant  direction.  When  we  have  settled  weather 
it  most  generally  is  from  northwest;  when  indicating  rain  it  changes  to  the  south  or 
southeast,  and  about  the  middle  of  September,  when  equinoctial  storms  are  looked  for, 
the  winds  are  from  northeast,  east,  and  southeast. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

ARKANSAS. 

From  southwest.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

From  the  south  and  west. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

South  and  southwest.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

From  east  or  west. — [F.  M.  Meekin,  Alachua. 

From  all  the  points  of  the  compass. — [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 

Easterly. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 

South,  southeast,  and  southwest. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Most  generally  from  the  south  and  southwest;  occasionally  from  the  northeast. — 
[S.  P.  Odorn,  Dooly. 

Every  direction. — [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 
South  and  northeast.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 
From  southwest,  northwest,  and  northeast. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 
Mostly  from  northeast.— [Timothy  Fnssell,  Coffee. 
Variable.— [William  Jones,  Clarke. 
July,  prevailing  winds  south  and  west. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 


426  REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

Prevailing  direction  of  winds,  Saint  Catherine's  Island,  coast  of  Georgia.  August,  1878. — 
10th,  southwest;  llth,  southwest ;  12th,  southwest ;  13th, southwest ;  14th,  southwest ; 
loth, south;  l(kh,  northeast;  17th,  south;  18th,  northwest;  19th,  west;  20th,  west; 
21st,  southwest ;  22d,  east;  23d,  east;  24th,  southeast;  25th,  southwest;  2Gth,  north- 
west ;  27th,  south ;  28th,  southwest ;  29th,  south ;  30th,  south ;  31st,  south. 

LOUISIANA. 

In  July  the  winds  are  from  the  south  and  southeast.  After  July  they  vary.— [John 
A.  Mary  man,  East  Feliciana. 

The  prevailing  direction  of  the  wind  from  July  till  frost  is  from  the  south. — [Dr.  I. 
U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

From  east  to  south  and  south  to  southwest  is  the  general  direction  of  the  wind  from 
July  to  frost,  yet  it  frequently  boxes  the  compass  during  that  period,  and  from  the 
15th  of  September  to  frost  is  often  from  northeast  to  north. — fDr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Mad- 
ison. 

From  some  southerly  point  varying  to  east. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

From  southwest. — [C.  Welch,  Covingtou. 

Mostly  south. — [Kenneth  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

From  the  south.— [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

Southerly  and  westerly  until  about  the  equinox,  -when  we  have  northeast  storms 
occasionally. — [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

July,  August,  to  September  15,  mostly  south  ;  after  that,  west  to  north. — [W.  Spill- 
man,  Clark. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

Southwest.— [J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 
Southwest.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

South  and  southwest  and  south  by  west. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 
South  winds. — [Paul  S.  Felder,  Orangeburgh. 

From  July  till  frost  from  the  east  around  to  southwest ;  mostly  from  southeast  to 
southwest. — [James  C.  Brown,  Bamwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

Prevailing  directions  of  winds  from  July  until  frost  are  as  follows :  July,  southwest  and 
south,  latter  predominating ;  August,  southwest  and  west,  former  predominating ;  Sep- 
tember, southwest  rarely,  west  and  northwest,  west  predominating ;  October,  west  and 
northwest,  latter  predominating.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  Perry. 

Winds  vary  a  good  deal,  mostly  from  southwest,  northwest,  and  west.— [John  Mc- 
Millan, Decatur. 

TEXAS. 

South  and  southeast  till  three  or  four  days  before  frost,  then  changed  to  northwest 
and  north  for  three  or  four  days. — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

South.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

Southeast. — [A.  Schroeter,  Burnet. 

Southeast.— [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

South  to  southwest. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

July,  August,  and  September,  south,  southeast,  southwest;  October,  changeable; 
November,  northers  set  in;  frost. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

The  winds  are  varied  from  July  to  frost,  but  mostly  from  south,  south  by  east  and 
south  by  west,  and  more  or  less  from  the  east. — [O.  II.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

The  winds  from  July  till  frost  are  from  the  south.  We  have  in  all  the  months  squalls 
from  the  northwest  and  north,  but  they  only  last  a  day  or  two. — [  J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

The  winds  in  July  and  August  are  about  the  same  as  in.  the  preceding  two  months  ; 
in  September  north  winds  begin  to  occur,  in  October  becoming  more  frequent,  the  iirst 
frost  generally  occurring  about  the  middle  of  November.  In  1859  in  the  latter  half  of 
November  we  had  two  severe  snow-storms  in  one  week.  Up  to  date  the  present  year, 
the  18th,  no  frost.— [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

From  the  south  it  occurs  at  special  times  all  through  the  year  (on  change  of  weather) 
that  we  have  a  west  wind,  an  east  and  northeast  wind,  but  this  does  not  last  long. — 
[W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

South  and  southwest.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Southeast. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

From  south  to  east.— [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

South  to  southwest.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

More  generally  from  the  south  ;  sometimes  a  damp  east  wind,  backed  by  a  "  Yankee 
norther."— [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  427 

QUESTION  ih.—The  side  of  the  field  on  which  the  worms  first  begin  to  work. 


In  this  section  we  have  what  is  called  a  fence  law;  the  plantations  are  not  fenced, 
but  owners  are  required  to  keep  stock  within  inclosures.  It  is,  therefore,  impossible  to 
tell  upon  which  side  of  the  field  the  worms  first  begin  to  work.  We  think,  however, 
they  usually  begin  where  the  cotton  is  most  luxuriant  and  tender. — [J.  B.  Callaway, 
Montgomery. 

Moist  places,  and  where  the  cotton  is  most  luxuriant.— [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

The  worms  first  begin  the  work  of  destruction  in  bottom  places,  where  the  cotton  is 
rank.  They  soon  spread  to  the  hill-sides  and  more  elevated  places.  They  have  a 
peculiar  odor  which  experts  recognize  before  they  see  them. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy, 
Montgomery. 

In  the  damp  spots,  where  the  cotton  is  most  luxuriant,  without  regard  to  side  of  the 
field.— [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

The  worms,  as  a  rule,  make  their  appearance  in  the  lowest  spots  of  land,  where  there 
is  the  rankest  growth  of  cotton.— [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

No  particular  locality.  They  have  been  known  to  make  their  first  appearance  in  the 
middle  of  large  fields  of  cotton ;  as  often  there,  probably,  as  on  the  sides  of  the  field. — 
[John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

The  worm  has  no  particular  side  to  commence  work  on.  They  invariably  commence 
on  the  best  cotton. — [J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

The  side  of  a  field,  north,  south,  east,  or  west,  has  no  influence  over  the  first  appear- 
ance of  the  worm. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

No  particular  side. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

The  only  time  I  ever  noticed  where  the  worm  first  made  its  appearance  was  on  the 
south  side  of  the  field.— [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

They  generally  attack  the  cotton-field  on  the  south  or  west  side  and  travel  to  the 
north  or  east. — [George  W.  Thagard,  Crenshaw. 

No  particular  side ;  generally  in  low  bottoms  and  in  particular  places  on  every  plan- 
tation. I  think  every  planter  knows  the  spot  on  which  they  first  appear  on  his  place. — 
[H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

Black  prairie  soils  or  soils  producing  a  sappy  growth  are  favorable  to  the  worm. 
Clayey  soils  are  not.  The  worm  is  always  later  in  destroying  cotton  shaded  by  trees. — 
[J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

If  cotton  is  of  uniform  height,  the  worms  invariably  begin  work  where  there  is  the 
most  shade  either  early  or  late  in  the  day.  But  if  plant  is  rank  and  green  in  spots,  the 
worm  will  begin  in  the  rank  green  spots  before  they  attack  the  small  plants  with 
brown  or  yellow  leaves,  irrespective  of  morning  or  evening  shades. — [P.  D.  Bowles, 
Conecuh. 

No  particular  side.  Generally  begin  their  work  of  destruction  in  the  most  luxuriant 
cotton,  regardless  of  locality. — [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

The  south  side  probably  of  tener  than  any  other ;  such  is  my  observation. — [C.  M. 
Howard,  Autauga. 

The  worms  commence  in  the  center  of  the  field  and  always  in  the  same  place,  and 
from  there  spread  over  the  whole  place. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

All  over  the  field  at  the  same  time.  Just  as  apt  to  find  them  on  the  north  side  as 
the  south  side.— [  J.  C.  Matthews,'  Dale. 

Where  the  cotton  is  rankest. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

On  the  west  side.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

There  is  no  particular  side ;  as  often  in  the  center  as  anywhere  else. — [H.  C.  Brown, 
Wilcox. 

No  particular  side. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

Generally  on  the  south,  though  not  always. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

The  side  of  the  field  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  commencing  of  the  caterpillar. — [H. 
Hawkins,  Barbour. 

I  have  no  experience  that  the  caterpillar  has  any  preference  as  to  where  it  shall 
commence  its  work. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Always  the  west  side. — [  J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

ARKANSAS. 

I  find  no  difference  with  regard  to  the  sides  of  the  field ;  all  the  field  is  affected 
alike.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 
Not  one  side  more  than  another. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

The  east  side.— [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 

No  particular  side  ;  they  always  begin  in  the  bottoms  and  rich  places. — [John  Brad- 
ford, Leon. 
They  never  attack  from  the  sides  of  the  field.— [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 


428  EEPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


No  particular  side;  usually  near  the  woodland  or  swamp. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

The  part  where  they  do  the  moat  noticeable  work  depends  upon  the  tenderness  and 
vigorous  growth  of  the  plant  during  July,  August  and  September. — [A.  J.  Cheves, 
Macon. 

No  particular  side ;  as  often  in  the  middle  as  on  either  side. — [Timothy  Fussell 
Coffee. 

West  side,  traveling  east ;  have  seen  them  departing,  mud  in  road  full  of  them.— 
[William  Harris,  Worth. 

They  commence  work  on  the  south  side  and  travel  northward. — [E.  M.  Thompson, 
Jackson. 

On  the  west  or  south  side  and  sometimes  in  the  center. — [S.  P.  Odorn,  Dooly. 

Generally  the  southwest. — [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

On  the  niost  luxuriant  spots  in  the  center  of  the  field. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

LOUISIANA. 

On  my  own  plantation  they  began  to  work  on  the  southeast  side,  and  I  have  noticed 
that  they  make  their  appearance  on  or  near  the  same  spot. — [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West 
Feliciana. 

They  appear  on  no  particular  side  of  the  fields. — [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The  insect  appears  first  in  the  wetter  parts  of  the  field,  wherever  they  may  be  situ- 
ated, and  they  are  often  found  commencing  in  the  bottoms,  which  are  naturally  wettest. 
When  a  basin  exists  in  the  middle  of  a  field  they  are  most  apt  to  start  there.  I  never 
saw  them  appear  at  the  edge  of  a  field. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

They  usually  begin  in  the  rankest  cotton.— [C.  Welch,  Coviugtou. 

They  begin  as  often  in  the  middle  as  anywhere  else. — [Kenneth  Clark,  Chickasaw. 

As  to  sides  of  the  field  on  which  the  worms  first  begin  to  work,  my  observations  are 
that  they  commence  of  tener  in  the  middle  than  on  any  particular  side. — [John  C.  Kus- 
sell,  Madison. 

Rarely,  if  ever,  commence  on  any  side  or  margin,  and  very  often  eat  out  all  the  inte- 
rior and  never  reach  the  margins  if  bounded  by  forests.  They  usually  begin  at  some 
point  in  the  interior  of  the  field,  and  year  after  year  at  about  the  same  point. — [D.  L. 
Phares,  Wilkinson. 

As  often  in  the  middle  as  anywhere  else  and  always  appear  in  the  same  spot  first ; 
as  in  my  field  they  have  appeared  in  the  same  spot  for  ten  years ;  it  is  low,  wet  bottom 
land.— [J.  W.  Bnrch,  Jefferson. 

The  south. — [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

It  commonly  attacks  where  the  plants  are  in  vigorous  growth,  but  sometimes  the 
reverse  is  the  case. — [J.  Culbertson.Rankiu. 

They  never  commence  near  the  woods,  but  select  the  richest  spots  and  gradually 
spread  over  the  field.— [J.  G.  G.  Garrett,  Claiborne. 

No  particular  side,  except  where  they  pass  from  one  plantation  to  another,  which  is 
ften  the  case  with  the  first  crop  of  them. — [W.  Spillman,  Clark. 

They  first  begin  in  some  flat  or  depression  in  the  fields;  not  at  the  side. — [ George  F. 
Webb>mite. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

North  and  west.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

Have  never  noticed  any  difference. — [  J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

In  a  field  bounded  by  woods  on  the  east  they  never  touched  a  plant  near  the  wood. — 
[J.  Stone,  Gaston. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

As  often  from  one  side  as  another,  and  just  as  frequently  in  the  middle  or  at  several 
points  at  once  tbrough  the  entire  field. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

Any  spot  which  has  a  low,  moist,  black  soil. — [Paul  S.  Felder,  Orangebnrgh. 

No  particular  side,  but  in  the  most  healthy  and  thrifty  spot  in  the  field ;  if  it  be  three 
or  four  acres  in  the  middle  of  100  acres. — [  J.  C.  Brown. 

TENNESSEE. 

The  dampest  side  of  the  field,  provided  it  is  well  exposed  to  the  sun,  is  generally  first 
to  sutler.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

The  worm  begins  to  work  on  the  highest  point  in  the  field  almost  certain  in  this 
country.  The  worms  are  to  be  found  some  distance  in  the  field,  hardly  ever  near 
timber  or  the  fencing.  The  highest,  richest  black  laud  is  where  they  first  appear,  and, 
strange  to  say,  they  will  frequently  leave  some  cotton  untouched  near  timber  about 
the  fences.— [O.  II.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  429 

If  the  moths  are  in  great  numbers,  the  worms  begin  their  work  all  over  the  largest 
fields  at  once.  This  year  there  were  not  many  worms;  they  wandered  from  one  field 
to  another.  No  particular  side  was  ever  noted  to  be  favored  by  tb.6  worms. — [  R.  Wip- 
precht,  Comal. 

There  is  no  particular  side  that  they  prefer.  Some  farmers  say  they  will  feed  with 
the  wind.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

From  lowest  wet  and  swamp  parts  of  the  field. — [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

The  worm  most  always  begins  its  work  in  the  middle  of  a  patch,  generally  in  places 
where  the  cotton  is  most  luxuriant.  For  the  past  two  years  it  has  commenced  on  the 
southwest  side,  the  moth  coming  in  the  direction  of  the  Colorado  River. — [J.  H.  Kran- 
cher,  Austin. 

Generally  near  the  center  or  away  from  the  edges  of  the  field.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

The  first  worms  are  generally  near  the  middle  of  the  cotton-field,  and  the  second 
crop  spread  in  all  directions. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

On  every  side  and  all  over  simultaneously. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

They  generally  attack  the  youngest  cotton  first,  no  matter  which  side  that  may 
be.— [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

Generally  the  soul  h  side  and  center,  except  that  side  is  low  damp  land.  High  points 
appear  to  be  the  first  points  attacked.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

Sometimes  in  one  place  and  again  in  another.  Generally  where  the  cotton  is  the 
rankest  and  largest.  Not  anyways  choice  of  sides. — [Natt.  Holuian,  Fayette. 

Generally  in  or  near  the  center. — [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

No  particular  side. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 


QUESTION  4 i. — Do  local  topographical  features  influence  tJie  extent  of  the  icorm's  ravages  f 

ALABAMA. 

They  seem  to  prefer  cotton  grown  in  black  lands,  as  they  generally  make  their  first 
appearance  on  that  character  of  land  and  eat  the  cotton  grown  there  first  before  mi- 
grating to  other  lands  ;  and  there  are  instances  of  their  making  their  appearance  for 
three  or  four  years  in  succession  on  the  same  piece  of  land. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sum- 
ter. 

I  am  living  on  a  line  between  the  black  or  prairie  lands  and  the  sandy  lands  in  this 
county.  This  black  belt  is  from  15  to  20  miles  wide,  running  nearly  east  and  west. 
The  first  worms  are  invariably  heard  of  in  the  black  belt,  and  this  is  even  so  on  the 
south  side  of  the  black  lands.  There  is  not  an  intelligent  farmer  in  this  section  but 
can  point  out  the  field  and  the  place  in  that  field  where  he  will  find  his  first  crop  of 
worms  before  they  appear.  They  invariably  put  in  their  first  appearance  in  the  same  lo- 
cality in  particular  fields.  This  has  reference  to  what  we  call  the  first  crop  of  worms. 
The  moth  that  is  developed  from  this  crop  may  be,  and  no  doubt  is,  carried  about  by 
the  winds.  But  why  or  how  could  the  moth,  surviving  the  winter,  invariably  select 
these  particular  starting  points  ? — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

I  think  they  do.— [I.  P.  Culver,  Bullock. 

They  are  more  numerous  and  destructive  on  black  prairie  and  bottom  lands.  They 
make  their  appearance  from  two  to  three  weeks  earlier  on  the  black  land  than  on 
sandy  and  light  colored  lands.  I  am  of  the  opinion/that  this  is  due,  at  least  in  part, 
to  the  fact  that  the  crops  are  earlier  on  black  lands. — [J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

They  frequently  do  less  damage  to  the  foliage  where  they  begin  on  places  as  indi- 
cated above,  the  following  brood  seeming  to  prefer  untouched  parts. — [C.  C.  Howard, 
Autauga. 

Have  never  known  the  cotton- worm  to  feed  upon  any  other  plant  than  cotton.— [R. 
F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

Low  lands  as  a  rule  are  more  favorable  for  the  rapid  and  destructive  development 
of  the  worm,  for  the  reason  that  the  moth,  guided  by  instinct,  deposits  her  eggs  where 
the  food  is  in  the  best  condition  and  most  abundant  to  nourish  the  infant  worm. 
Where,  by  fertility  of  the  soil  and  sufficient  rain,  the  upland  crops  are  as  luxuriant 
in  foliage  as  the  bottom  or  low  land,  they  are  visited  as  early  and  as  destructively  as 
the  low  lands.  Places  in  many  fields  escape  their  ravages. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

I  think  not.  But  I  do  think  that  topographical  features  have  a  great  influence  in 
producing  a  larger  or  Bmaller  number  of  the  caterpillar.  Dense  and  moist  localities 
appear  to  be  the  most  favorable  for  the  protection  of  the  moth  during  the  winter. — [I. 
D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

Does  not.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Low  lands  are  always  attacked  first;  and,  where  the  weeds  are  large  and  thick,  this 
is  a  protection  from  the  heat  of  the  sun. — [  J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

They  are  more  destructive  and  appear  earlier  in  black  or  prairie  lands  than  on  gray 
or  sandy.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 


430  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

The  low  wet  places,  where  the  plant  is  most  luxuriant,  are  first  attacked.  The  rich 
slough  lands  are  generally  much  injured  before  the  thinner  and  dry  uplands. — [H.  A. 
Stolen werck,  Perry. 

None  that  1  have  discovered. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

The  richer  the  land  and  the  ranker  the  cotton  the  greater  the  ravages  of  the  worm. 
— [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

As  to  local  topographical  features'  influences,  will  say  that  the  worm  is  first  reported 
in  this  State  in  the  lime-belt  or  prairie  lands  in  and  around  Montgomery  Conn*y,  where 
the  lands  are  level,  while  in  this  county  the  greater  part  of  our  lands  are  undulating 
and  hilly.  The  present  year  the  worms  have  destroyed  all  the  cotton-leaves  in  Beat 
No.  3,  which  is  adjoining  this,  No.  11,  where  they  have  only  honey-combed  it  up  to  this 
time.  Beat  No.  11  is  due  east  of  No.  3.  During  the  years  1867,  '68,  '69,  the  worm  failed 
to  attack  cotton  planted  on  second-years  lands,  but  have  since,  equal  with  old  lands. 
—[P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

They  do,  materially,  being  much  less  destructive  in  the  hilly  or  sections  interspersed 
with  forests  than  on  the  level,  opeu  prairie.  My  own  plantation  is  surrounded  by  forest, 
except  a  small  space  on  the  northwest.  I  never  have  had  the  wrorm  come  in  force 
until  most  of  my  neighbors'  crops  have  been  entirely  denuded — at  least  fifteen  days 
later.  Sometimes  they  do  me  little  or  no  damage,  while  a  few  miles  distant  destroy 
fullv  one- fourth.  My  plantation  is  mostly  level,  about  one-half  prairie  slough  land. — 
[M.'W.  Hand,  Greene. 

Stiff,  post-oak  land. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

They  do ;  but  I  am  unable  to  define  the  features  in  a  locality  most  favorable  for  their 
ravages. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autanga. 

They  are  more  destructive  in  the  black  prairie  lands  than  in  the  pine  lands. — [A.  D. 
Edwards,  Macon. 

Local  features  and  nothing  else  determine  the  ravages  of  the  worm.  Low,  damp 
spots,  in  different  parts  of  the  same  field,  are  attacked  at  the  same  time,  while  other 
portions  are  left  unmolested  until  the  general  crop  of  caterpillars  make  their  appear- 
ance— the  third  crop  or  generation — and  when,  in  a  few  days  after  the  hatching  of  this 
crop,  not  a  leaf  is  to  be  seen  in  the  whole  field. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

I  think  this  may  be  said  of  local  influences  :  A  field  entirely  surrounded  by  woods 
is  decidedly  less  subject  to  the  worm  than  open  plantations,  and  it  is  to  be  seen  in 
all  such  fields,  that  on  their  borders  the  worm  refuses  to  eat  up  the  leaves,  unless  it  be 
the  army  worm,  as  has  been  alluded  to;  they  take  everything  before  them.  Another 
observation  of  mine  is,  that  cotton  planted  among  peach-trees,  if  not  entirely  pre- 
served, is  by  no  means  entirely  destroyed  or  killed  by  them.  I  think  the  same  true  as 
to  cotton  about  or  under  a  persimmon  tree,  from  which  I  conclude  that  acids  properly 
used  might  prevent. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Ou  many  or  all  plantations  I  know  the  caterpillar  invariably  appears  in  certain  spots 
before  it  is  elsewhere  found.  These  spots  are  not  distinguished  by  any  discoverable 
(at  least  to  me)  cause  or  harbor  for  producing  the  moth  or  protecting  it. — [J.  W.  Du 
Bose,  Montgomery. 

It  sometimes  occurs  that  an  acre  only,  or  a  quarter  or  a  half  of  a  field,  remains  un- 
touched by  the  worms,  when  in  all  the  balance  the  leaves  are  totally  destroyed  up  to 
the  margin  of  a  line.  And  the  cause  of  this  we  cannot  tell,  except  it  be  toughness  of 
the  leaves,  developed  by  the  peculiarity  of  the  soil ;  for  the  worms  prefer  the  tender 
leaves  in  every  stage  of  their  existence. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

I  think  not.  I  can  see  no  difference  in  rough  or  smooth  or  old  or  new  land.  The 
worst  piece  of  ground,  or  rather  cotton,  is  in  old  land,  and  the  next  in  new. — [T.  S.  Ed- 
wards, Pope. 

Yes.  Our  field,  infested  with  worms,  is  separated  from  another  by  a  narrow  strip  of 
timber  150  yards  wide,  and  in  the  second  field  there  are  no  worms.  While  in  other 
fields,  where  are  no  obstructions  between  them,  such  as  cornfields,  timber,  &c.,  the 
worms  travel  from  one  field  to  another,  gradually,  as  they  strip  the  field  where  they 
first  appear.-[E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

In  small  fields  where  they  are  surrounded  by  dense  .woods  and  where  cotton  was 
never  planted  before  it  is  always  much  leas  affected  by  the  worm  for  a  year  or  two. 
New-ground  cotton  is  certainly  less  affected  by  the  worm. — [J.  M.  McGehee,  Santa 
Rosa. 

We  think  not.— [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 

No.— [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

If  so,  I  have  failed  to  note  it.  A  patch  of  cotton  shaded  by  trees  and  houses  clear 
up  to  plantation  residence  is  generally  first  attacked  and  suffers  badly. — [William  A. 
Harris,  Worth. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIECULAR.  431 

I  think  local  topographical  features  have  bat  little  to  do  with  the  worm.— [E.  M. 
Thompson,  Jackson. 

They  do,  as  low  swamp  lands  and  fresh  or  newly-cleared  lands  are  the  most  subject 
to  them.— [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

I  think  not.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Eerrien. 

Only  so  far  as  they  promote  the  growth  of  the  cotton. — [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

I  think  not.— [William  Jones,  Clark. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  does  not.— [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

LOUISIANA. 

Think  not.  This  plantation  is  entirely  isolated.  It  has  one  mile  of  woods  on  one 
side,  two  miles  on  the  other  "and  on  the  back,  with  a  lake  three-fourths  of  a  mile  wide 
along  the  entire  front,  but  we  are  eaten  up  by  the  worms  about  as  soon  as  our  neigh- 
bors.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

I  write  only  of  my  own  parish,  where  the  lands  in  cultivation  are  almost  altogether 
uplands.  We  have  very  few  plantations  on  the  river  or  alluvial  lands,  so  far  as  to 
amount  to  a  very  small  percentage  of  the  aggregate.  On  river  and  bayou  lands,  which 
are  alluvial  to  the  west  and  south  of  us,  the  army  worm  appears  usually  earlier  than 
with  us  and  increases  more  rapidly,  and  is  there'fore  more  destructive.  The  reasons 
for  this  are  due  perhaps  to  the  rankness  and  succulence  of  the  cotton-plant  on  allu- 
vial lands  in  comparison  with  its  growth  on  our  poorer  and  drier  lands. — [Douglas  M. 
Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

Where  the  lands  are  low  and  moist  and  the  plant  luxuriant  the  extent  of  ravage  is 
the  greatest. — [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 

They  appear  earlier  and  are  more  destructive  on  rich  creek  bottoms  and  alluvial 
lands.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I  think  the  first  brood  introduced  into  a  field  would  destroy  the  cotton  upon  which 
it  was  bred,  until  it  went  into  chrysalis,  without  regard  to  any  topographical  features, 
and  the  second  and  third  brood,  &c.,  would  widen  the  area  unchecked  by  any  local 
features,  except  a  ditch  or  stream  of  water,  which  would  check  the  progress  of  the 
worm.  The  worm  sometimes  eats  the  cotton  along  a  line  and  does  not  pass  the  fur- 
row, because  it  finds  there  enough  to  eat  before  going  into  chrysalis.— [Dr.  E.  H.  An- 
derson, Madison. 

They  do.  We  often  see  fields  in  part  of  which  all  the  foliage,  young  bolls,  even 
half-grown  bolls,  and  the  bark  of  older  ones  are  completely  consumed,  when  in  other 
parts  of  the  same  field  the  plants  remain  intact,  even  though  continuous  in  the  same 
rows  with  that  destroyed.  The  caterpillars  refuse  to  pass  a  certain  line.  On  one  side 
of  this  line  the  plants  are  completely  denuded ;  on  the  other,  untouched.  They  may 
cross  this  line,  but  will  eat  no  cotton-leaf  beyond  it.  If  placed  on  the  plant,  they 
speedily  abandon  it,  and  will  starve  rather  than  eat  it.  Yet  one  sees  little  or  no  differ- 
ence in  the  cotton  on  the  two  sides  of  this  line. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

Never  heard  of  local  topographical  features  having  influence  to  extend  the  worm's 
ravages.— [John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

Very  little.— [C.  Welch,  Coviugton. 

In  reply  to  topographical  features,  you  will  notice  how  strongly  Dr.  Phares  alludes 
to  the  insect  eating  up  a  line  or  along  a  line  and  leaving  other  plants  untouched  bor- 
dered by  forests.  The  first  is  due,  I  think,  to  the  fact  of  their  finding  enough  to  eat 
where  they  are  quartered,  and  their  indisposition  to  migrate  unless  impelled  by  hun- 
ger. The  second,  to  the  fact  that  the  plant  is  not  subject  to  the  rays  of  the  sun  until 
the  dew  has  passed  off.  This  feature  I  have  always  noticed  on  the  east  side  of  a  field.— 
[E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

Deep,  rich,  black  laud  favors  their  production.  Our  county  is  partly  sandy  and 
hilly;  the  worms  seldom  trouble  it.  The  eastern  portion  is  black,  open,  prairie-ham- 
inock  and  some  bottom,  where  they  give  us  fits. — [Kenneth  Clark,  Chickasaw. 

To  a  certain  extent  low,  moist  lands  first,  where  cotton  is  slow  in  starting  to  grow 
off.  Hills  or  table  lands  are  the  last  attacked. — [  J.  W.  Bnrch,  JeffereoTi. 

In  flats  and  depressions  their  numbers  are  greatest  and  the  damage  most  alarming. — 
[George  F.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

No ;  but,  unlike  the  worm  further  south,  it  seldom  attacks  the  rankest  growth  of 
cotton  in  the  bottoms,  but  prefers  to  feed  on  the  smaller  sized  cotton  on  the  ridges. — 
[J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

Think  not.— [James  W.  Grace,  Colle ton. 

This  year  they  have  eaten  up  the  leaves  of  the  cotton  in  the  low,  black,  moist  places, 
and  stopped  as  soon  as  the  gray,  sandy  land  was  reached. — [Paul  S.  Felder,  Orange- 
burgh. 

Not  to  any  perceivable  extent.— [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 


432  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

TENNESSEE. 

Yes.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Low  places  are  more  exposed  to  the  ravages  of  the  worm. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

No.-[P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

To  some  extent.    More  in  some  localities  than  in  others.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titos. 

Yes.— [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

Low  lands  that  retain  sap  or  where  the  plant  is  tender. — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

I  think  not.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

Cotton  that  is  youngest  is  attacked  first ;  new  lands  or  lands  of  thrifty  growth. — 
[  J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshor. 

In  this  part  of  the  country,  neither  mountain,  forest,  nor  stream  have  proved  to  be 
a  protection  against  their  visits. — [A.  Schroeter,  Burnet. 

They  do.  I  noticed  this  year  in  a  field  of  15  acres  cotton,  the  foliage  of  which  was 
nearly  all  eaten  up  on  the  2d  day  of  October,  several  spots  of  from  one-quarter  to  one-half 
acres  each  on  which  there  was  not  a  worm.  Not  having  had  my  attention  directed  to 
the  matter,  I  did  not  examine  to  ascertain  the  cause. — [  W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

In  wet  and  damp  places  where  cotton  is  most  fresh,  green,  and  tender. — [H.  J.  H. 
Brensing,  Bowie. 

I  am  inclined  to  the  opinion  it  does.  It  generally  makes  its  appearance  south  and 
southeast  of  this  county  (Washington).  It  will  appear  in  the  same  latitude  of  this 
county  sooner  than  here.  This,  I  think,  is  owing  to  altitude,  as  this  count v  is  higher. — 
[O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

High  hills  and  mountains  and  broad  rivers  no  doubt  have  some  effect  to  check  their 
depredations ;  also  wide  belts  of  timber ;  but  this  county  being  mostly  a  prairie  county 
with  occasional  belts  of  timber  the  worm  generally  appears  all  over  the  county  at  the 
same  time ;  the  prairie  farms  bordering  on  Colorado  County,  the  country  between 
them  and  the  Colorado  plantations,  being  an  unbroken  prairie,  have  of  late  years  been 
first  affected,  generally  three  weeks  in  advance  of  the  farms  lying  further  north. — 
f  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

No.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

I  do  not  think  it  does.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Not  at  all. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

They  do  not.— [Stephen  Harbert,  Colorado. 


QUESTION  4j. — Does  or  can  ike  worm  feed  upon  any  other  plant  tlian  cotton,  and  have  you 
ever  known  it  to  do  so  f 


Worms  are  confined  to  the  cotton-plant  for  food.— [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

Never  knew  it  to  feed  on  anything  but  cotton.— [J.  II.  Smith  and  J.  F.  Calhoun, 
Dallas. 

The  worms  feed  on  nothing  but  cotton. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

No. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

The  cotton-worms  are  generally  very  select  in  their  diet,  and  generally  confine  them- 
selves to  the  cotton.  Wo  noticed  on  one  occasion  they  ate  the  leaves  of  the  egg-plant, 
which  very  much  resembles  the  cotton  in  the  texture  of  its  leaves. — [Dr.  John  Peuri- 
foy,  Montgomery. 

Have  never  known  the  cotton- worm  to  feed  upon  any  other  plant  than  cotton. — [R. 
F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

It  feeds  on  nothing  else  than  the  cotton-plant,  and  when  they  have  cleaned  out  a  field 
they  seek  new  pastures,  always  traveling  east. — [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

No. — [Knox,  Miuge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

I  have  never  known  them  to. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macou. 

Don't  think  the  worm  can  feed  upon  any  other  plant  than  cotton  ;  have  never  known 
or  heard  of  them  feeding  on  any  other  plant. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbonr. 

They  survive  on  nothing  else  ;  sometimes  web  in  other  leaves,  but  I  don't  think  it 
amounts  to  anything.— [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Never  have  known  them  to  eat  anything  else. — [J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

Have  not  known  it  to  do  so. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

The  worm  does  not  feed  on  any  other  plant  than  cotton.  I  have  tried  them  on  vari- 
ous other  plants  and  grasses,  but  they  have  never  eaten  them  ;  would  die  of  starvation 
sooner. — [  J.  N.  Gihuore,  Snmter. 

On  cotton  alone. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

They  do  not. '    Never  have  known  them  to.     In  fact  they  go  into  the  ground,  those 


APPENDIX   II — ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  433 

•which  do  not  die  on  it.  They  often  disappear  in  twenty- four  hours.  I  have  seen  the 
ground  covered  to-day  and  all  gone  to-morrow.— [J.  C.  Ma t> hews,  Dale. 

I  have  never  known  them  to  feed  on  any  other  plant.— [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

Can't,  and  never  have. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

I  never  knew  the  worm  to  eat  any  other  plant  except  cotton  ;  they  web  up  in  other 
plants  but  never  eat  it. — [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

I  have  never  known  it  to  feed  on  any  other  than  the  cotton-plant.  It  is  peculiar  in 
its  looks  and  habits  from  all  other  worms. — [I.  D.  Dtiesbach,  Baldwin. 

I  have  never  known  of  their  feeding  on  anything  bat  the  cotron-plant. — [C.  M.  How- 
ard, Autauga. 

I  believe  it  cannot  and  never  does. — [  J-  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

I  have  never  known  the  Alelia  argillacea  to  eat  any  other  plant. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

None.-[M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

ARKANSAS. 

I  have  never  seen  nor  heard  of  them  feeding  on  anything  else. — [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 
Only  on  the  cotton. — [Noiborne  Young,  Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

Have  never  heard  of  their  feeding  on  anything  else. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 

I  have  never  known  it  to  feed  on  any  other  plant  thau  the  cotton-plant. — [  J.  M.  Me- 
Gehep,  Santa  Rosa. 

It  does.    We  have.— [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 

I  believe  that  it  does.  I  believe  that  the  great  loss  by  the  ravages  of  the  cotton 
caterpillar  could  be  avoided  by  simultaneous  action  by  all  interested  and  at  small 
cost.  The  insect  is  indigenous  to  the  country,  consequently  finds  in  the  forest  plants 
adapted  to  its  wan' 8  and  would  be  present  in  the  country  were  there  not  a  stalk  of 
cotton  in  it. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

The  worm  was  never  found  by  him  (Henry  Gaston)  on  anything  but  cotton,  and  he 
had  noticed  it  leaving  one  patch  of  cotton  and  going  to  another  when  leaf  failed  and 
there  was  nothing  for  the  worms  to  continue  feeding  upon.  He  had  used  Paris  green, 
dusted  in  a  dry  state  upon  the  leaves,  and  it  killed  the  worms.  Care  had  to  be  used 
by  him  to  avoid  the  poison  getting  into  his  eyes  or  on  sores  or  tender  places  of  the 
body.— [A.  R.  Grote. 

I  do  not  think  they  will  eat  anything  but  cotton. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

Never  have  known  it  to  feed  on  anything  but  cotton. — [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

The  worm  sometimes  feeds  on  corn-fodder ;  they  eat  also  crop-grass.  It  may  not  be 
the  same  species  of  worm,  but  I  think  it  is. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

Worms  feed  upon  nothing  but  cotton,  when  they  start  on  the  cotton. — [Timothy  Fus- 
sell,  Coffee. 

I  have  never  known  them  to  feed  on  any  thing  but  cotton  in  this  locality. — [M.  Kemp, 
Marion. 

LOUISIANA. 

I  have  never  known  the  cotfcon-worm  to  feed  upon  anything  but  the  cotton-plant. — 
[John  A.  Mary  man.  West  Feliciana. 

I  have  seen  millions  dying  all  over  the  field,  surrounded  by  every  species  of  vegeta- 
tion, but  not  a  cotton-leaf.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

The  army  worm  feeds  exclusively  on  the  cotton-plant,  and  its  existence  terminates 
when  it  has  destroyed  this  utterly.  Millions  of  them,  of  all  ages,  colors,  and  sizes,  take 
up  their  march  alter  destroying  a  field,  and  I  have  never  seen  or  heard  of  their  seizing 
on  any  other  sort  of  vegetation  to  sustain  thei'r  lives  at  this  period.  I  have  never 
made  any  experiments  in  trying  to  hatch  out  and  feed  and  rear  the  worms  in  bottles, 
boxes,  or  close  rooms,  though  others  have  done  so  here.  1  do  not  know  what  has  been 
the  result  of  these  various  experiments,  never  having  witnessed  or  informed  myself 
about  them.  Like  the  worms  peculiar  to  the  tobacco-plants,  mulberry,  cabbage,  &c., 
the  army  worm  seems  to  bo  peculiar  to  the  cotton  plant,  and  where  it  appears  gener- 
ally and  in  numbers,  they  are  found  in  every  piece  of  cotton,  no  matter  how  large  or 
small,  or  what  its  peculiarities  are  as  to  location  and  surroundings. — [Douglas  M.Ham- 
ilton, West  Feliciaua. 

After  they  have  totally  destroyed  the  cotton-plant,  I  have  known  them  to  feed  upon 
other  plants  to  sustain  life  until  they  could  form  their  web.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West 
Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The  worm  feeds  alone  on  cotton. — [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 
It  feeds  on  the  crab  grass. — [William  T.  Lewis,  Winston. 
Never.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

No ;  and  I  have  noticed  them  closely.— [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 
2801 


434  EEPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

Never  knew  the  worm  that  destroys  the  coUon-leaf  to  feed  on  anything  else. — [John 
C.  Russell,  Madison. 

I  have  never  known  them  to. — [Daniel  Cohen,  Wilkinson. 

I  have  found  the  Aletia  webbing  up  in  different  weeds,  grape  leaves,  blackberry  and 
mulberry,  and  also  eating  the  latter,  owing  no  doubt  to  the  iield  being  stripped  of 
leaves. — [E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

I  have  never  seen  them  on  any  other  plant  or  feed  on  any  other.  I  have  seen  thou- 
sands of  the  moths  in  thick  grass  and  on  pea  vines ;  they  seem  to  like  the  cover  of  pea 
vines  in  day,  but  have  never  seen  the  worms  or  eggs  onthe  pea-vines  or  on  grass. — [C. 
F.  Sheriod,  Lowndes. 

They  feed  upon  nothing  but  cotton.  I  have  often  seen  them  devouring  each  other, 
after  the  field  was  stripped  of  its  leaves,  among  weeds,  grass,  and  pea-vines. — [I.  G.  G. 
Garrett,  Clarborne. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

The  worm  feeds  on  the  cotton-plant  only. — [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

Have  never  known  it  to  do  so. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

I  have  never  known  the  cotton-worm  to  feed  on  anything  but  cotton. — [Paul  S.  Fel- 
der,  Orangobnrg. 
The  worm  never  feeds  on  anything  but  cotton. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

From  the  evidence  of  others,  I  cannot  well  deny  that  the  worms  do  sometimes  feed 
upon  other  plants  for  a  short  time ;  though  the  fact,  if  a  fact,  is  contrary  to  my  obser- 
vation.—[A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

I  believe  under  certain  conditions  the  moth  would  make  its  appearance  very  early, 
and  finding  only  grass  would  deposit  its  eggs  thereon,  and  that  the  worm,  on  hatching 
out,  would  eat  the  leaves  of  the  grass. — [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

I  do  not  think  the  worm  does  or  can  feed  uprn  any  other  plant  than  cotton.  I  have 
seen  them  start  to  travel  after  cleaning  off  the  cotton,  and  pass  over  weeds,  grass, 
and  other  shrubes,  but  never  attempted  to  eat  anything.  They  would  pile  up  and  die 
by  the  million.  Nothing  but  cotton  would  they  eat. — [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

They  never  do.— [S.  P.  Watts,  Harden. 

Have  been  seen  several  years  to  eat  grass— crop-grass,  we  call  it  here.  Have  seen 
•them  one  year  eat  wormwood  in  geat  quantity.  They  do  it  only  when  there  is  no  more 
cotton  to  eat. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

In  cases  of  extreme  hunger  they  have  been  known  to  eat  crop-grass,  though  slightly, 
.and  sometimes  they  devour  each  other.— [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

I  have  seen  a  few  on  the  tomato  after  the  cotton-plant  had  become  too  dry.  I  do 
Bot  know  that  they  fed  on  it. — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

The  worm  does  not  feed  on  anything  but  cotton.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

They  never  feed  upon  any  other  plant. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

It  does  not.  I  have  tested  it  to  my  satisfaction.  Naturally  it  feeds  upon  the  cotton- 
plant,  and  cannot  be  forced  (by  confinement)  to  feed  upon  anything  else.  I  have  fol- 
lowed and  watched  them  after  leaving  a  field  that  they  had  devoured.  They  were 
starved  out,  but  eat  nothing,  and  so  perished. — [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

Never  known  to  feed  on  any  plant  but  cotton.  When  the  cotton  hns  all  been  de- 
stroyed the  large  ones  fall  upon  anything  that  they  can  find  a  leaf  sufficient  for  them 
to  double  over,  the  younger  ones  perishing  by  starvation,  or  ants  and  hot  sand,  &c. — 
J_.Natt  Holman,  Fayette. 

No. — [Stephen  Harbert,  Colorado. 

WISCONSIN. 

•Charles  Jackson,  four  miles  from  Racine,  raised  large  quantities  of  melons  for  market, 
mostly  of  the  nutmeg  variety.  He  complained  to  me  that  there  was  a  miller  that 
xintruu'd  in  his  melon  patch  aib  night,  and  did  much  damage.  I  visited  the  locality  at 
night,  and  discovered  that  it  was  the  Alelia  arflillacca,  and  that  they  did  literally 
.swarm;  and  wherever  there  was  a  ripe  melon  that  had  a  slight  crack  on  its  surface 
there  the  moth  was  sucking  and  crowding  into  the  heart  of  the  fruit,  and  in  that  way 
they  die1  considerable  damage.  This  was  on  September  10, 1877.  Last  September  they 
were  not  so  numerous,  and  did  less  damage.  I  noticed  where  the  melons  were  per- 
i'ectly  sound  they  did  not  work.— [P.  R.  Hoy,  Racine. 


APPENDIX   II — ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  435 

QUESTION  5. — State  the  time  wh-en  ihe  first  moths  are  noticed  in  your  locality. 

ALABAMA. 

Every  warm  spell  through  the  winter  they  are  seen  coming,  late  in  the  afternoon, 
from  fodder-stacks,  eaves  of  sheds,  and  like  places.— [J.  H.  Smith,  J.  F.  Calhoim, 
Dallas. 

The  moth  is  quite  shy,  and  until  they  become  pretty  plentiful  are  rarely  seen.  The 
first  worms  that  I  have  over  known  were  reported  as  early  as  May  1. — [R.  W.  Rus- 
sell, Lowndes. 

Some  years  the  moths  are  noticed  as  early  as  the  middle  of  July,  but  when  they  ap- 
pear so  early  they  are  very  few. — [J.  N.  Giimore,  Sumter. 

In  the  mouth  of  May  usually ;  occasionally  the  first  of  June.— [J.  S.  Hausberger, 
Bibb. 

They  have  been  seen  in  January. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

Latter  part  of  July  and  first  of  August. — [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

They  are  here  to  be  found  among  rotten  wood,  and  under  pieces  of  wood  and  bark, 
any  time  during  the  fall,  winter,  aud  spring.  They  commence  gathering  to  the  cot- 
ton-fields in  the  month  of  July;  not  many  in  June. — [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

The  moths  are  seen  frequently  on  warm  nights  in  January,  February,  and  March. — 
[P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

Frequently  in  spring. — [J.  W.  Dn  Bose,  Montgomery. 

About  the  first  of  July.— [George  W.  Thagard,  Crenshaw. 

Last  of  May ;  in  our  opinion  these  moths  are  from  chrysalis  that  have  wintered  here 
under  ground. — [Kuox,  Miuge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

The  moths  make  their  appearance  the  latter  part  of  June. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

Moths  have  been  noticed  in  this  locality  on  warm  evenings  in  January. — [D.  Lee, 
Lowndes. 

Sometimes  in  May,  but  most  generally  in  June. — [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

In  May  or  June. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

July  generally;  sometimes  the  latter  part  of  June  a  few  have  been  seen. — [J.  R. 
Rogers,  Bullock. 

It  is  thought  by  many  in  early  spring,  but  as  far  as  I  know  the  moth  taken  for  the 
cotton-worm  may  or  may  not  be  the  genuine. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

The  moth  is  to  be  found  in  this  locality  during  the  entire  season.  In  the  winter  it 
is  concealed  under  the  bark  of  dead  trees,  in  old  barns,  or  under  the  roofs  of  old  build- 
ings. During  warm  spells  in  the  winter  they  will  come  out  from  their  covering,  and 
may  be  seen  flying  about  of  nights  around  the  lamps  and  frequently  remain  in  the 
rooms  of  houses  occupied. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

The  moths  can  be  found  during  the  winter  in  places  where  suitable  shelter  can  be 
found,  such  as  the  bark  of  trees,  hay-stacks,  barns,  &c.  Several  days  warm  weather 
decoys  them  out,  even  in  mid- winter. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

Sometimes  seen  in  the  winter  months,  if  mild,  protected  by  trash  and  rubbish,  and 
in  the  spring,  especially  if  a  warm,  cloudy  day  ;  at  night,  around  lights,  are  seen  the 
identical  moths.— [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

lu  I860.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

About  20th  Juue. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

From  the  last  of  June  to  the  middle  of  July ;  sometimes  even  earlier  than  this. — [H. 
C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

About  the  last  of  May.— [H.  A.  Stolenwerek,  Perry. 

In  1874  I  saw  plenty  of  moths  in  January  ;  they  were  housed,  however,  under  the  hull 
of  an  old  pine ;  the  hull  being  torn  from  the  heart  of  the  tree  and  leaving  cracks,  the 
moths  had  taken  shelter.  I  put  fire  to  the  tree  and  quite  a  swarm  came  out.  1  pre- 
sume all  that  were  not  buroed  perished  from  cold  or  were  devoured  by  birds.  The 
moths  have  been  seen  as  early  as  May  in  the  cotton- fields,  but  generally  late  in  June 
or  July ;  were  seen  the  present  year  in  July. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

I  have  never  noticed  the  moth,  otherwise  than  they  may  be  turned  from  their  abid- 
ing place  duriug  any  month  of  winter  or  spring  in  plowing. — [A.  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Moths  make  their  appearance  in  July  in  this  locality. — [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

Have  never  had  any  reliable  evidence  of  moths  migrating  in  an  experience  of  thirty- 
five  years.  I  have  seen  them  in  sufficient  numbers  to  attract  attention  during  warm 
days  of  February  and  March,  and  am  satisfied  they  had  come  out  from  their  winter 
quarters.  *  "In  this  manner  many  of  them  perish,  and  no  large  number  left  to 

propagate  in  the  early  summer,  aud  heuce  no  great  destruction  to  the  cotton  that  season. 
Greatest,  loss  after  cold,  hard  winter. — [J.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

The  moths  may  be  seen  here  any  warm  evening  in  winter.  We  have  often  seen  them 
around  the  lamp  in  the  coldest  night  of  winter,  warmed  into  action,  doubtless,  by 
the  hot  fire  sin  the  chimneys,  and  come  down  from  the  attic  of  the  dwelling,  where 
wasps  and  such  insects  hibernate.  They  are  swarming  out  now.  March  15,  1879. — 
[Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 


436  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


July  and  later. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 
June  l.-[E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

Generally  July  ;  sometimes  last  of  June. — [John  Bradford,  Leon, 
lu  June. — [John  B.  Carriu,  Taylor. 
Last  of  June,  or  in  July.— [  J.  M.  McGehee,  Santa  Rosa. 

I  biive  seen  the  inotb  in  February,  but  not  in  the  cotton-fields.  Have  observed  them 
in  the  fields  the  latter  part  of  May.— [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEOUGIA. 

Early  part  of  June. — [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrieu. 
June  and  July.— [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

July  and  August ;  mostly  in  August ;  they  make  their  web  in  the  cotton-leaves. — [E. 
M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

The  first  moths  seen  here  about  July  10.— [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

June  20  and  1st  of  July.— [Timothy  Fusrell,  Coffee. 

About  the  middle  of  August. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

This  year  on  or  about  the  -28th  of  August.— [S.  P.  Odom.Dooly. 

Have  seen  them  in  dead  of  winter  alive. — [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

About  the  middle  of  July.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

The  moths  are  noticed  here  generally  in  June  and  July  for  the  first ;  some  persons 
say  they  see  them  earlier ;  some  even  contend  that  they  are  to  be  found  in  winter  in 
tearing  down  hay  or  fodder  stacks  or  pulling  the  bark  from  old  trees.  There  are  so 
many  moths  or  small  butterflies  which  look  so  like  the  moth  which  produces  the  army- 
worm,  that  our  common  people  would  never  be  able  to  tell  the  difference.  When  they 
become  numerous,  they  may  be  observed  flying  about  the  cotton  plants  late  in  the  eve- 
ning or  into  rooms  where  there  is  a  light,  and  then  any  one  knows  them. — [Douglas 
M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

The  first  moths  are  noticed  in  March,  April,  and  May.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

It  would  be  a  hard  statement  to  make  as  to  the  time  when  the  moth  makes  its  first 
appearance.  From  the  fact  of  there  being  so  varied  a  tribe  of  moths,  many  people  are 
misled,  mistaking  others  for  the  real  cotton- worm.  I  have  known  them  here  in  July. — 
[John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

I  have  seen  the  moth  in  this  county  in  every  month  of  the  year. — [J.  Cnlbertsou, 
Ran  kin. 

They  usually  appear  from  the  1st  to  the  15th  of  August ;  sometimes  earlier. — [Dr. 
E.  H.  Anderson. 

In  May  rarely  ;  June  seldom;  July  generally. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

About  May  10;  some  say  by  the  1st. — [J.  W.  Bnrch,  JeS'erson. 

About  the  20th  of  July,  in  limited  numbers. — [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

A  few  in  June ;  generally  in  July. — [R.  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

Generally  in  June. — [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

From  thelst  to  the  20th  of  June.— [I.  G.  G.  Garrett,  Claiborne. 

Any  time  of  warm  days  in  Fobrunry,  but  do  not  deposit  eggs  until  the  last  of  June 
or  first  of  July.— [W.  Spillman,  Clarke. 

Perfect,  insects,  closely  resembling  that  of  the  cotton-worm,  were  captured  in  May  ; 
and  the  eggs  obtained  by  dissection  of  the  moth  exactly  corresponded  with  descrip- 
tion in  Agricultural  Report,  1873,  of  egg  cotton  caterpillar. — [G.  W.  Smith- Vaniz,  Madi- 
son. 

About  the  15th  or  20th  of  July.— [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

About  the  first  of  September.— [F.  I,  Smith,  Halifax. 

From  the  15th  to  the  30th  of  August. — J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

Sometimes  as  early  as  the  middle  of  June;  generally  about  the  1st  of  July. — [James 
W.  Grace,  Colh-tou. 

This  year  (1879)  they  were  first  noticed  the  10th  of  August.  Last  year  about  the 
25th  of  August ;  some  years  as  early  as  the  15th  of  July. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barn- 
well. 

TKXNESSKE. 

August  W.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  Perry. 


APPENDIX    II— ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAK.  437 


Once  as  early  as  the  20th  of  June,  and  again  on  the  26th  of  June. — [  J.  W.  Jackson, 
Titus. 

June.    Plenty  of  them  now,  this  the  25th  day  of  June.— [Natt  Holman,  Fayette. 

The  first  moth  is  generally  seen  in  May.  In  1867  the  worm  made  its  appearance  in 
April,  before  the  cotton  was  chopped.  (Season  extremely  wet.)  Nearly  every  year 
following  they  made  their  appearance  from  the  20th  of  May  to  the  10th  of  June.  If 
the  season  should  be  dry  it  takes  about  three  months  from  the  time  the  first  worm  is  seen 
till  the  cotton  is  destroyed ;  but  if  a  wet  season,  about  two  and  a  half  mouths.  I  notify 
every  one  on  my  farm  when  to  look  for  worms  in  the  spring,  and  have  obtained  the 
above  results.  The  worm  when  first  appearing  is  green ;  the  second  crop  is  green, 
neither  doing  any  damage;  but  the  third  has  most  black-back  worms  and  soon  de- 
stroys the  crop.  It  is  just  three  weeks  between  each  successive  brood  of  worms. 
After  the  brood  becomes  numerous  enough  to  destroy  the  crops  there  is  a  continuous 
laying  and  hatching  of  eggs  until  everything  is  eaten  up,  then  all  the  imperfect  worms 
die.  When  the  cotton  is  eaten  up  on  the  Brazos,  150  miles  south  of  me,  before  we 
have  worms  to  hurt  us,  we  begin  at  once  to  get  ready  to  poison,  as  the  moths  when 
hatched  out  cover  the  whole  face  of  this  county.  They  come  in  upon  us,  as  it  were,  in 
a  day  and  lay  our  cotton  full  of  eggs.  The  eggs  are  a  light  blue  or  dark  green  when 
first  laid,  and  approach  to  a  gray  color  the  nearer  they  approach  hatching.  The  eggs 
are  not  laid  in  clusters,  but  each  egg  separate.  The  young  worm  feeds  on  the  under 
side  of  the  leaf.  While  young,  and  when  old  enough  to  pass  to  chrysalis,  it  will  web 
on  anything  that  is  convenient,  but  generally  on  the  cotton  if  there  is  leaf  enough, 
and  always  on  the  upper  side  of  the  leaf.  The  chrysalis  does  not  pass  the  winter 
alive.  Some  farmers  think  the  chrysalis  enters  the  ground  till  spring,  and  then  the 
fly  comes  out.  They  believe  this  from  the  fact  that  they  plow  up  many  chrysalides 
during  the  spring  when  breaking  land.  I  have  found  the  moth  in  midwinter  housed 
in  old  rotten  trees.  I  had  numbers  of  them  caught  and  know  them  to  be  the  verita- 
ble cotton-lly.  I  have  hatched  out  great  numbers  of  them.  They  never  fold  their 
wings  as  do  some  moths,  but  present  rather  a  triangular  shape  and  always  light  with 
their  head  down  or  soon  turn  their  head  down  if  they  light  otherwise.— [W.  T.  Hill, 
Walker. 

The  moths  are  scarcely  ever  seen  until  the  first  brood  of  worms  have  gone  through 
the  first  two  stages  of  their  life.  I  have  heard  some  farmers  say  they  had  seen  the  fly  about 
-  the  middle  of  June.  Now,  the  time  of  first  appearance  of  the  worm  varies  each  year. — 
[J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Very  seldom  as  early  as  June.  The  larger  number  generally  appears  from  July  to 
September. — [A.  Schroeter,  Burnet. 

From  the  10th  of  June  to  the  1st  of  July.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

July  1  to  10.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Early  in  July.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

About  the  10th  of  June.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Harden. 

July.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

About  July.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

The  latter  part  of  May  or  first  of  June,  but  not  in  great  numbers. — [  J.  H.  Krancher, 
Austin. 

Some  years  late  in  June,  but  not  often  before  the  1st  of  July,  and  sometimes  not  until 
late  in  August,  which  was  the  case  this  year,  1878. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

They  are  noticed  in  the  spring. — [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 


QUESTION  5  a. — Date  when  the  first  icorms  have  been  noticed  in  past  years. 

ALABAMA. 

On  uplands,  1873,  July  1 ;  on  uplands,  1874,  July  15;  on  swamp,  1874,  July  15.  On 
uplands,  1875,  none ;  on  swamp,  1875,  June  11  On  uplands,  1876,  August  14  ;  on  swamp, 
1876,  July  12.  On  uplands,  1877,  July  26 ;  on  swamp,  1877,  May  31.  On  uplands,  1878, 
August  27 ;  on  swamp,  1878,  June. — [ J.  H.  Smith  and  J.  F.  Calhoun,  Dallas. 

The  worm  made  its  first  appearance  in  this  locality  in  1874,  the  31st  day  of  July,  but 
not  in  sufficient  numbers  to  do  any  material  injury  to  the  crop  at  that  time,  but  had 
destroyed  it  by  the  last  day  of  August.  I  am  not  in  possession  of  any  reliable  dates  for 
other  years  since,  but  as  a  rule  they  have  come  later  each  year.— [  J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

May  12. — [  J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

During  the  summer  of  1873  the  first  worms  were  noticed  in  Julv,  about  the  first  of 
that  month.— [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickeus. 

Dates  of  appearance  of  caterpillar  in  my  own  crop  may  be  given  as  follows,  viz  : 
Marengo Couuty,  Canebrake :  1869,  August  15;  1870, late  in  September;  1871, late  in 
August;  1872,  June  16;  1873,  July  16;  1874,  July  8;  1875,  late  in  July;  1876,  about 


438  REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

August  1.    Montgomery  County,  Warrin  :  1877,  July  25 ;  1878,  July  8.— [  J.  W.  DuBose, 
Montgomery. 

In  the  last  of  July  and  1st  of  August. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

In  1840,  September ;  1870,  August ;  1872  and  1873,  July  ;  1878,  August.— [I.  F.  Culver, 
Union  Springs,  Bullock  County. 

Early  in  May,  1868, 1  found  several  worms  in  different  localities,  that  were  growing. 
Except  that  year,  the  earliest  seen  wa,s  the  last  day  of  June. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

Wo  cannot 'give  correct  dates  as  to  the  various  years.  They  usually  appear  in  the 
mouth  of  August  of  the  years  in  which  they  do  most  damage. — [  J.  S.  Hausberger,  Bibb. 

A  few  in  June. — [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

From  the  10th  to  the  13th  of  June. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

About  the  1st  of  July. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

The  latter  part  of  June  the  worms  ha,ve  been  noticed. — [A.  1).  Edwards,  Macon. 

Worms  were  seen  in  1873  in  May ;  this  year  in  August. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

I  have  seen  a  well-developed  caterpillar  eating  the  cotton  when  I  was  putting  it  to 
a  stand  in  May,  but  the  appearance  then  was  no  indication  that  they  destroyed  the 
crop  any  earlier  than  usual ;  di-1  not  propagate  to  do  any  harm  until  the  season  of  the 
year  usual,  from  June  on. — [A.  Jay,  Jay  villa,  Conecuh. 

Have  seen  worms  in  July. — [B.  B.  Dunlap,  Green. 

July  13.— [J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

Late  in  May  or  early  in  June. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

I  cannot  give  the  particular  dates,  but  know  that  when  they  put  in  their  appearance 
early  that  the  crop  will  become  destructive.  In  1873  I  saw  them  as  early  as  the  20ih 
of  May. — [R  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

In  October,  1824  ;  in  September,  1825 ;  the  20th  of  August,  1846.  There  have  been 
so  many  worm  years  since  18(55  I  do  not  remember  the  dates  of  but  a  few.  Of  late 
years  the  worms  appear  in  small  numbers  about  the  15th  of  July. — [D.  Leu,  Lowndes. 

Generally  between  the  1st  and  10th  of  July.— [M.  W.  Hand,  Forkland,  Green. 

About  the  20th  of  July.— [George  W.  Thagard,  Crenshaw. 

Sometimes  as  early  as  May,  but  generally  not  before  the  15th  of  July. — [I.  D.  Dries- 
bach,  Baldwin. 

The  17th  of  May,  1874.— [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

The  20th  of  July,  when  most  fatal :  some  years  not  till  the  2d  or  3«1  of  August. — [J. 
C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

About  the  15th  of  June. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Appeared  in  the  picnic  lands  this  year  (1878)  about  the  28th  of  July.  €an't  say  as 
to  previous  years.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

From  the  10th  of  August  to  laat  day  of  the  month  ;  occasionally  as  early  as  the  1st 
of  July.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

In  18G9,  August  15;  in  1872,  June  16;  in  1878,  July  8.— [J.  W.  DuBose,  Montgomery. 

The  first  appearance  of  the  worms  is  difficult  to  ascertain,  from  the  fact  that  they 
are  so  few  at  first,  and  scattered  over  so  large  an  area  of  cotton-fields.  The  negroes, 
who  mostly  cultivate  these  fields,  say  that  the  first  worms  appear  sooner  than  we  im- 
agine (say  some  time  in  May).  Our  own  observation  is,  that  the  eggs  of  the  moth  are 
deposited  when  the  cotton  begins  to  bloom  ;  and  this  is  later  in  some  years  than  others. 
The  average  time  is  the  first  week  in  June,  on  the  earliest  cotton-stalks.  And  it  may 
bo  that  the  moth  is  attracted  to  the  cotton-fields  by  a  double  purpose :  The  first  and 
most  important,  perhaps,  is  the  propagation  of  her  species ;  the  second,  to  suck  the 
cotton-blooms — for  we  often  see  them  in  the  bloom,  "as  busy  as  a  bee." — [Dr.  John 
Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

The  first  worm  appears  about  two  weeks  after  the  first  moth. — [Norborne  Young, 
Columbia. 

The  10th  of  July.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 
June  21.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

For  the  last  twelve  years  we  never  pass  June  without  some  one  finding  the  worms. 
Some  years,  as  you  know,  they  will  eat  out  the  crop,  and  others,  like  the  present,  little 
or  no  damage  will  be  done. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 

About  the  1st  of  July  is  the  earliest  they  have  ever  been  seen  in  this  county. — [John 
B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 

Previous  to  the  introduction  of  new  improved  seeds,  they  were  observed  about  the 
middle  of  August.  Referring  to  an  old  journal  which  I  kept,  I  discovered  a  few  August 
11, 1841.  The  winter  of  1841  was  cold  and  in  1842,  there  was  no  damage  to  the  crop  by 
caterpillar.  The  winter  of  1842  was  milder  and  drier,  tbe  first  frost,  November  10, 
killing  the  cotton, which  was  then  green.  July  15,  1843,  I  found  a  caterpillar;  the 
crops  of  this  year  were  destroyed. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

First  caterpillars  reported  in  Leon  County  in  18(59.  May  12 ;  1872,  June  29 ;  1873, 
May  24  ;  1874,  July  2  ;  1875,  June  24  ;  1877,  June  19;  1878,  June  15.— [Robert  Gamble, 
Leon. 


re  governed  myself  in  planting  by  what  they  reported  to  me. — [Douglas  M. 
i,  West,  Feliciana. 


APPENDIX    II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  439 

GEORGIA. 

The  worms  first  made  their  appearance  in  September,  1804,  then  not  again  until 
late  in  September  of  1825  ;  then  September  5,  1840 ;  September  19, 1843;  August  18, 1846, 
August  26  increasing  largely  ;  September  14  fields  almost  stripped  ;  by  the  19th  the 
fields  were  completely  stripped ;  August  20,  1847,  August  18,  1852.  These  two  years 
no  harm  done.  I  stopped  planting  in  1865  and  have  kept  no  notes  since. — [William 
Jones,  Clark. 

Middle  of  June. — [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

In  1843  they  appeared  about  the  1st  of  September.— [S.  P.  Odorn,  Dooly. 

From  August  10  to  September  1. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

Last  of  May  on  my  place  ;  have  heard  of  them  in  other  localities  sooner. — [William 
A.  Harris,  Worth.  * 

Never  earlier  than  the  latter  part  of  June. — [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

The  first  worms  were  discovered  in  last  of  August  and  first  of  September  during  the 
worm  years. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

LOUISIANA. 

I  have  had  my  neighbors  tell  me  that  they  found  the  genuine  army  worm  on  the 
young  cotton-plants  when  working  them  the  first  time  scraping  and  chopping  out, 
but  I  cannot  say  that  I  have  seen  any  so  early  myself.  These  persons  were  reliable, 
and  I  have 
Hamilton, 

In  1866,  '67,  and  '73  1  have  noticed  them  early  in  June.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feli- 
ciana. 

The  first  worms  are  found  about  the  last  of  July. — [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feli- 
ciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Generally  in  June  or  July. — [Daniel  Cohen,  Wilkinson. 

They  are  remarkably  regular  in  their  habits.— [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

About  the  first  week  in  July. — [J.  Culbertson,  Rankin. 

I  think  there  is  a  pretty  good  brood  hatched  out  in  May  and  early  in  Jnne  that 
would  destroy  the  crop,  but  for  the  plowing  that  shakes  them  off  the  stalks  and  they 
are  covered  up  by  the  earth. — [I.  W.  Burke,  Jefferson. 

In  July.— [Kenneth  Clark,  Chickasaw. 

The  month  of  July  worms  have  been  found  in  past  years.  This  year  I  have  seen 
fields  eaten  clean  in  July. — [John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

This  year  the  worms  were  found  eating  cotton  as  early  as  the  15th  of  July  before 
any  moths  were  observed. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

Slay,  June,  July,  August. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

In  1866  and  1867  I  discovered  the  matured  worms  on  the  13th  of  June ;  the  flies 
came  out  in  eight  days  after  the  chrysalis  was  formed.  My  field  was  stripped  of  its 
leaves  the  first  week  in  August ;  made  about  half  a  crop.  — [1.  G.  G.  Garrett,  Claiborne. 

First  in  1846,  8th  of  July ;  other  years  at  various  times  up  to  the  15th  of  August. — 
[George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

Not  sooner  than  September  8.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

From  the  1st  to  the  15th  of  September. — J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

TENNESSEE. 

August  13.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

From  June  15  to  July  1,  though  sometimes  they  have  not  been  observed  till  August 
1,  yet  have  done  great  injury. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

The  first  worms  are  seen  or  noticed  from  three  to  five  days  after  the  moth. — [James 
C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TEXAS. 

The  earliest  that  I  have  ever  known  the  cotton-worm  to  appear  was  in  1867,  about 
the  20th  of  July ;  that  year  was  remarkable  for  the  late  freeze  in  March  and  the  year 
of  abundance  of  rain,  during  the  summer  months.  They  did  not,  however,  eat  of  the 
cotton-leaves  until  about  the  1st  of  September;  they  appeared  in  small  quantities,  per- 
forated the  leaves  in  places,  made  it  look  rather  bad,  but  it  continued  to  form  and 
make  until  entirely  eaten  off,  which  it  took  the  third  generation  to  do ;  the  result  was 
a  fair  crop  was  realized. — [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

From  the  10th  of  June  to  the  1st  of  July.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

From  July  1  to  October  1. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

A  few  in  June. — [A.  Schroeter,  Barnes. 

June  and  July  the  fly.first  makes  its  appearance. — [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 


440  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

I  cannot  give  the  exact  date,  bat  believe  in  1866  they  came  about  the  1st  of  August ; 
1873  about  July  15  ;  1875,  a  few  appeared  iu  September;  1877  they  came  in  numbers 
about  August  20. — [  J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

About  the  20th  of  June,  sometimes  earlier. — [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

Latter  part  of  July  and  August.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

July. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

In  1866  they  made  their  appearance  in  immense  numbers  on  the  29th  of  August, 
making  a  clean  sweep  in  about  three  or  four  days.  Very  destructive  in  1872  ou  the 
15th  of  August.  In  small  numbers  1873,  July  1.  In  1875  appeared  the  8th  of  May ; 
1876,  1st  of  June  ;  1877,  July  5  in  considerable  numbers.  They  generally  reappear  till 
first  part  of  October  and  disappear  entirely  with  the  advent  of  cold  nights  and  rains. 
— [J.  H.  Kraucher,  Austin. 

In  August. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Latter  part  of  June  and  July. — [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

Ou  the  13th  of  July  and  again  on  the  18th  of  July.— [  J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


QUESTION  5  Z>. — Date  when  the  last  worms  have  l>een  seen  in  past  years,  or  were  noticed  the 

present  year. 

ALABAMA. 

The  worm  the  past  year  disappeared  about  the  last  days  of  September.  If  the  worms 
are  not  sufficiently  numerous  to  destroy  the  crop  before  they  mature,  they  all  spin  that 
are  not  destroyed.  If  it  is  not  fully  grown,  it  dies  if  the  cotton  gives  out. — [  J.  N.  Gil- 
more,  Snmter. 

Worms  are  found  until  frost  destroys  the  foliage,  unless  by  their  numbers  the  foliage 
is  entirely  consumed  earlier.  This  has  occurred  several  years.  But  few  worms  met 
the  frost  this  year. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

I  have  seen  them  as  late  as  October  16  in  1877.  There  were  few  as  late  as  October  1 
the  past  year,  1878.— [R.  W.  Russell,  Loundes. 

September  and  first  part  of  October. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

Usually  in  September;  in  1878  in  October.— [J.  H.  Smith,  J.  F.  Calhoun,  Dallas. 

They  usually  continue  until  the  cotton-leaves  are  all  consumed,  unless  frost  should 
kill  them. — [J.  L.  Hausberger,  Bibb. 

October  and  November. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

About  the  15th  of  September.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

In  October  in  1877.— [J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

The  worms  remain  generally  till  frost,  about  October  15  or  November  1.— [A.  D.  Ed- 
wards, Macon. 

Have  seen  worms  till  frost. — [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

They  seem  to  pass  out  of  existence  when  the  cotton-fields  are  swept  over,  in  or  about 
September. — [A.  Jay,  Conecuh. 

September.— [J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

Last  I  saw  this  year  were  in  October. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

The  last  worms  are  generally  seen  until  the  cotton-leaf  is  entirely  destroyed.  I  think 
when  the  nights  become  cool,  as  they  do  in  October,  that  this  stops  the  hatching  of 
the  eggs. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

Frost  has  often  come  before  they  had  destroyed  all  of  the  cotton-plant  foliage.  They 
generally  stay  until  they  ent  up  all  of  the  cotton  foliage. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

The  last  worms  noticed  this  season  were  in  October. — [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

Sometimes  until  frost.  The  present  year  they  are  still  at  work,  but  not  in  this  par- 
ticular locality,  as  they  had  eaten  up  the  crop  by  the  1st  of  September. — [H.  A.  Stol- 
enwerck,  Parry. 

About  tho  10th  day  of  October,  all  over  the  county.— [D.  P.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

The  1st  of  October. — [Kuox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Halo. 

Have  seen  them  this  year  as  lute  as  the  15th  of  October. — [James  M.  Harrington, 
Monroe. 

September  15.— [George  W.  Thagard,  Crenshaw. 

About  the  15th  of  October,  and  often  until  frost  if  the  cotton  will  furnish  them 
food.— [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

Tho  28th  of  July,  1878.— [R.  II.  Powell,  Bullock. 

About  the  last  of  October ;  in  1844  they  were  caught  by  a  frost,  and  those  which 
were  then  at  work  were  killed  dead. — [D.  Lee,  Lowudes. 

They  stay  until  frost  if  there  is  any  cotton-leaf  to  feed  on.  Most  of  them  die  or  go 
into  the  ground  before  frost.  They  do  not  travel  from  field  to  field,  as  some  think.— 
[J.  C.  Matthe%vs,  Dale. 

On  or  about  frost. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

From  the  1st  to  tho  15th  of  October ;  this  year  a  little  later. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 
•  After  the  cotton  ceases  to  grow  and  after  a  frost. — [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

The  worms  last  year  (1878)  appeared  comparatively  late,  and  they  came  to  stay. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  441 

Having  appeared  first  in  the  prairies,  as  usual,  they  spread  to  the  sandy  land  on  the 
Tallapoosa  River  and  did  considerable  damage,  and  disappeared  in  the  cool  weather 
in  the  first  weeks  of  October. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

September  30  about  the  average,  though  sometimes  as  late  as  frost. — [E.  T.  Dale, 
Miller. 

In  1875  they  remained  until  frost.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 
Until  frost. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

Have  known  them  to  come  "in  force"  and  eat  out  the  crop  the  last  of  September. — 
[John  Bradford,  Leon. 

Very  few  are  seen  the  last  of  August  and  first  of  September. — [ J.  M.  McGehee, 
Santa  Rosa. 

About  the  first  of  November.— [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 

Often  remaining  on  the  fields  after  frosts  as  caterpillars;  arein  the  fields  at  this  time, 
September  29.— [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Past  years  the  25th  of  October.— [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

October;  have  seen  none  the  present  year. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

They  disappear  at  the  first  frost,  say,  October  15.— [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

At  the  appearance  of  frost. — [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrian. 

In  October,  even  after  a  slight  frost— if  late  cotton  young  and  succulent. — [William 
A.  Harris,  Worth. 

Their  last  appearance  is  governed  by  the  appearance  of  heavy  frost,  which  varies 
from  last  of  October  to  latter  part  of  November. — [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

In  1869  and  1874  from  the  20th  to  the  30th  of  September.— [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jack- 
Bon. 

LOUISIANA. 

Sometimes  the  last  worms  are  seen  soon  after  they  have  eaten  out  the  cotton-fiolds 
in  August,  September,  or  October,  as  the  case  maybe.  Again, they  eat  the  cotton  very 
slowly,  and  continue  to  eat  it  until  cold  weather  comes  to  kill  both  worm  and  cotton. — 
[Douglas  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

I  have  seen  them  as  late  as  the  middle  of  October.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

Worms  are  seen  sometimes  until  frost. — [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Felicia,n-i. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The  last  crop  of  worms  were  just  coming  out  the  12th  of  October,  when  we  had  our 
first  slight  frost.  They  began  to  disappear  very  soon,  and  I  could  find  no  chrysalides. 
They  did  not  fold  in  the  leaf  as  the  preceding  crop  did. — [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

A  few  now  (November  3)  after  ice  and  frost ;  plenty  of  chrysalides  hanging  to  the 
skeleton  of  the  dead  leaves.  I  kill  them  every  day  as  I  walk  through  my  fields. — [  J. 
W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

They  can  be  found  as  long  as  there  are  any  green  cotton-leaves ;  that  is,  till  frost. — 
[J.  Cnlbertson,  Rankin. 

July,  August,  September,  when  food  has  been  consumed  or  rendered  unfit  for  their 
use ;  otherwise  October,  November,  and  even  as  late  as  December. — [D.  L.  Phares, 
Wilkinson. 

Worms  are  here  in  October  if  there  is  any  living  foliage  on  the  plant,  and  they  stay 
till  it  is  cleaned  out  by  them  or  frost,  which  is  often  late  as  November.— [John  C.  Rus- 
sell, Madison. 

They  are  rarely  observed  here  after  October,  unless  the  frost  is  late,  when-  the  lo,8t 
brood  may  be  found  in  November. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

The  last  worms  seen  this  year  was  about  September  10.  Some  years  they  are  seen 
till  October  15.— [C.  Welch,  Covidgton. 

October. — [Kenneth  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

They  were  in  some  fields  this  year  alter  the  first  frost,  on  the  7th  of  October.— [I.  G. 
G.  Garrett,  Claiborne. 

They  were  in  my  cotton-field  this  year  until  the  latter  part  of  October.— [W.  Spill- 
man,  Clark. 

In  past  years  the  last  have  been  seen  about  the  20th  of  October,  when  frost  was  that 
late,  usually  at  frost. — [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

About  September  15.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 


442  REPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 


SOUTH   CAROLINA. 


None  have  ever  been  seen  after  a  severe  frost. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 
The  last  worms  are  seen  at  frost.     There  will  be  some  spots  green  enough  to  sustain 
a  few  until  the  frosts  end  them. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

Last  worms  were  observed  last  year  October  21.  Frost  occurred  soon  after,  which 
was  the  latest  frost  in  my  memory. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

The  last  worms  are  seen  when  the  cotton-fields  are  stripped  and  the  worms  starve  to 
death,  or  they  disappear  after  a  heavy  frost. — [J.  M,  Glasco.  Upshur. 

About  the  middle  of  September,  generally  :  this  year  as  late  as  the  25th  of  Septem- 
ber.—[P.  S.  Watts,  Harden. 

Worms  now  at  work,  Novembers,  and  will  work  till  frost. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

The  worm  continues  to  generate  until  frost.  The  cotton  begins  to  leaf  in  a  few  weeks 
after  the  first  destroctioft  ;  then  the  worm  comes  again,  but  not  in  much  force — [O.  H. 
P.  Gajrett,  Washington. 

Generally  during  the  second  and  third  weeks  in  September,  but  this  year  as  late  as 
the  second  week  in  October.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

October. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

In  past  years  the  end  of  October;  the  present  year  there  are  none. — [A.  Schroeter, 
Burnett. 

They  generally  last  as  long  as  leaves  and  young  bulbs  last. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Seen  from  July  until  November. — [Stephen  Harbert,  Colorado. 

In  1867  they  remained  (third  brood)  until  the  6th  of  October,  it  being  a  late,  pleasant 
fall,  and  no  frost  until  this  date,  which  froze  them  out. — [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

In  October  none  seen  yet,  but  reported  south  of  me,  or  rather  this  county. — [Natt. 
Holman,  Fayette. 


QUESTION  5c. — Number  of  broods  or  generations  of  the  worms  generally  produced, 

ALABAMA. 

When  the  worm  comes,  say  the  middle  of  July,  there  is  generally  three  broods  pro- 
duced before  they  destroy  the  crop,  but  if  they  come  late  in  the  season  the  first  brood 
generally  destroys  the  entire  cotton-leaf. — [J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

In  1868  there  were  three  distinct  reproductions  ;  since  then  the  generations  have 
been  blended  ;  that  is,  the  insects  were  in  every  stage,  until  tho  fields  were  completely 
denuded.  This  blending  of  generations  is  caused  by  the  time  occupied  by  tho  moth  in 
depositing  her  eggs,  from  four  to  six  days,  the  first  hatching  that  much  in  advance. — 
[P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

From  three  to  four.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bnllock. 

Three  to  four.— [J.  S.  Hausberger,  Bibb. 

Three. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

Generally  two  or  three ;  in  this  latitude  seldom  more  than  two :  farther  south  three. — 
[H.  Tutwiier,  Hale. 

We  think  the  third  generation  will  eat  out  the  field. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Three,  is  the  general  opinion. — [J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

Should  say  three. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Depends  on  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  first  crop.  Usually  they  are  in  dis- 
tinct crops,  there  being  twenty-one  days  between  each  generation.  The  third  crop 
generally  becomes  numerous  enough  to  eat  the  leaves  of  the  entire  sections  in  a  few 
days.  The  scattering  or  first  crop  are  invariably  green.  The  second  are  mixed,  some 
green  without  the  black  stripes.  The  third  are  all  striped,  and  at  the  least  touch  of  the 
plant  will  spring  as  thpugh  shocked  with  electricity. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

Those  who  have  paid  the  greatest  attention  to  them  state  that  it  requires  three  (Tops 
to  destroy  the  crop  of  cotton  ;  but  I  have  seen  them  from  July  20,  continuously  until 
the  crop  was  destroyed,  say  about  August  25. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

About  three,  sometimes  four. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

Three  and  four.— [J.  H.  Smith,  J.  F.  Calhonn,  Dallas. 

By  common  consent,  three. — [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

First  general  brood  about  the  10th  of  August ;  second  brood  first  of  September;  third 
and  most  destructive  brood  (the  appalling  and  "sweep  all"  brood)  from  the  20th  to 
the  25th  of  September.  New  broods  come  about  every  twenty  days. — [I.  D.  Driesbach, 
Baldwin. 

There  are  two  cro  ps  of  the  worms. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

Some  farmers  belie  ve  a  fly,  resembling  a  small  butterfly,  lays  eggs  upon  the  cotton- 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS   TO    CIRCULAR.  443 

leaf;  the  eggs  are  hatched  by  the  heat  of  the  sun,  and  make  worms;  these  worms  web 
inthecottou-leavesand  make  a  second  fly,  and  so  on  the  to  third  fly,  and  this  third  brood 
destroys  the  cotton  crop.  My  own  opinion  differs.  I  think  the  eggs  that  are  seen  on 
the  under  side  of  the  leaf  make  lice. — [George  W.  Thagard,  Crensbaw. 

Three  broods,  I  think,  are  always  produced  during  the  season  before  the  crop  is  ma- 
terially damaged.— [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

Two  broods  of  worms  in  a  season. — [R.  13.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

The  prevailing  opinion  has  been  that  there  were  three  broods,  though  for  the  past 
two  years  that  opinion  has  been  changed,  under  the  impression  that  there  are  enough 
of  them  preserved  from  the  preceding  year  to  destroy  the  crop  whenever  the  weather 
is  propitious. — [H.  A.  Stolen werck,  Perry. 

I  have  never  seen  but  three  distinct  broods.  If  they  come  early  they  disappear 
early. — [J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

Three  broods :  first,  largo  green ;  second,  light  striped ;  third,  black  and  de- 
vwirers. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

About  three  broods. — [H.  0.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Always  three. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

Three  generations  :  the  tirst  very  few  ;  second,  numerous ;  third,  multiplied  millions, 
and  will  eat  the  field  out  in  three  days,  whether  one  acre  or  1,000  acres;  the  growth 
of  the  worm  is  rapid,  as  he  will  be  full  grown  in  three  days. — [ J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

Three.— [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Three. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

About  three. — D.  Lee.  Lowndes. 

Generally  two,  sometimes  ns  many  as  three. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

ARKANSAS. 

About  three  ;  it  generally  takes  the  third  to  ruin  the  crop.— [Norborne  Young,  Co- 
lumbia. 
Generally  three.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

In  former  years,  when  they  appeared,  we  expected  three  broods;  the  third  was  the 
one  to  eat  out  the  crop.  Later  years  they  do  not  seem  to  follow  rules.  Sometimes  will 
appear  in  small  force  and  continue  to  increase  and  eat  for  several  weeks  until  all  is 
eaten  out.  Again,  they  will  sweep  everything  in  three  or  lour  days. — [ J.  Bradford, 
Leon. 

Three.— [John  B.  Carr in,  Taylor. 

I  am  not  certain  of  more  than  two,  though  there  may  be  more. — [J.  M.  McGehee, 
Santa  Rona. 

The  third  brood  is  generally  supposed  to  sweep  the  field,  but  there  is  at  leas4;  one 
brood  preceding  these,  not  noticed  in  consequence  of  paucity  of  number. — [R.  Gamble, 
Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

In  the  writer's  opinion,  the  moths  hibernate  in  decaying,  sappy  parts  of  woods,  thick 
grass,  and  other  places  where  materials  are  soft,  spongy,  or  good  non-conductors  of 
heat  with  crevices  that  enable  them  to  hide  from  wind  and  cold;  that  as  soon  as  the 
weather  is  warm  enough  they  emerge  in  the  spring,  but  are  so  few  in  number  that 
they  are  not  observable  until  they  have  passed  through  perhaps  half  a  dozen  genera- 
tions ;  then  the  third  broods  are  generally  sufficient  to  eat  up  all  the  tender  leaves. — 
[A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

About  two.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

Generally  two;  sometimes  three. — [William  Jones, Clarke. 

Three  broods ;  the  first  does  not  do  much  damage ;  it  is  the  second  brood  that  does. — 
[T.  Fussell,  Cottee. 

This  depends  upon  the  time  the  moths  make  their  appearance,  as  they  will  produce 
a  new  crop  every  four  weeks,  if  the  weather  is  favorable. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

As  many  as  three.— [  William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

Three.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

I  cannot  answer  this  question  accurately  or  even  satisfactorily,  to  yon  or  myself.  I 
believe  there  are  no  regular  number,  but  these  are  governed  by  the  time  when  they 
firs*  appear  and  the  rapidity  witb  which  they  increase  and  destroy  the  cotton  crop ; 
with  this  last  event  the  last  crop  perisbes. — [Douglas  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciaua. 

There  are  generally  three  broods,  or  generations,  of  the  worms  produced. — [Dr.  I.  U. 
Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

There  are  about  three  generations  in  one  season  produced. — [John  A.  Marymau, 
East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I  think  about  three.  The  first  is  very  small  in  number  and  does  so  little  damage 
that  few  people  discover  it.  The  year  Id89  was  remarkable  for  the  (apparent  at  lease) 


444  EEPORT   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

number  of  generations ;  the  first  being  survivors  of  the  preceding  year,  or  imini' 
grants  ;  second,  caterpillars  matured  in  my  cat*e,  imago,  July  6  ;  third  matured  August 
2  ;  fourth,  September  1 ;  fifth,  October  1  to  15 ;  and,  lastly,  the  progeny  of  these  last, 
none  of  which,  so  far  as  I  could  discover,  passed  beyond  the  pupa  stage.  Even  some 
of  the  fifth  generation,  after  completing  the  last  transformation,  were  so  weakened 
from  cold,  drought,  or  other  causes  that  they  could  not  burst  the  pupa  cases,  in  which 
I  found  the  moth  dead  and  dry. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkenson. 

Three  broods  of  worms  produced,  and  that  has  been  generally  enough  to  clean  the 
cotton-crop  of  overthing  that  a  cotton-worm  could  live  on. — [John  C.Russell,  Madison. 

I  think  they  kept  up  a  continual  stream  of  generation. — [Daniel  Cohen,  Wilkinson. 

About  three.— [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

Usually  two  or  three,  sometimes  four  and  five. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

Three  or  four. — [Kenneth  Clark,  Chickasaw. 

Three,  I  think.— [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

Three.— [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

From  three  to  five.  I  have  noticed  four  or  five  broods  when  they  failed  to  strip  the 
field  of  its  leaves ;  the  birds,  the  ichneumon,  and  other  insects,  held  them  in  check. — 
[I.  G.  G.  Garrett,  Claiborne. 

Three,  and  if  a  late  autumn,  or  frost,  four. — [W.  Spillman,  Clark. 

Three.— [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

Only  one.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

Three  when  destructive.— [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

From  three  to  five,  according  to  favorable  circumstances  or  time  of  first  appear- 
ance.— [James  C.  Brown,  Baruwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

Five  or  six  are  the  generations  sometimes  produced ;  my  own  observations  would  say 
generally  not  more  than  two,  barely  three. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

There  are  about  three  broods,  depending  mostly  on  the  time  of  their  appearance.  I 
will,  as  far  as  my  knowledge  goes,  grve  the  course  they  take.  First,  a  few  ragged 
leaves  on  the  cotton  indicates  the  presence  of  the  worm.  On  examination  a  few 
patches  of  worms  may  be  found;  the  first  generally  are  as  green  as  the  cotton-leaf. 
In  about  ten  or  twelve  days  they  wind  up  in  leaves  and  remain  about  four  days,  when 
a  dusky  brown  moth  is  hatched.  She  soon  commences  to  deposit  her  eggs,  which 
are  said  to  hatch  in  three  or  four  days.  This  new  brood  takes  their  course  and  pre- 
pares for  the  next  brood,  which  cleans  up  everything. — [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Three  ;  under  circumstances  favorable  to  them,  four. — [A.  Schroeter,  Burnet. 

It  is  difficult  to  say  how  many  broods  there  are,  but  the  fourth  finds  but  little  to 
feed  on,  and  so  dies.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

Two  broods  each  year. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Generally  three ;  this  year  four.— S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

Generally  two,  occasionally  three. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

From  two  to  four  broods,  though  but  one  brood  is  to  be  feared;  that  is  the  second. — 
[O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

Three  and  four.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hard  in. 

Three  broods.— [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Miller. 

Generally  throe  broods. — [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

Two,  and  sometimes  three. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

In  their  early  history  the  crop  was  never  eaten  up  until  the  third  generation  ap- 
peared, about  three  weeks  being  the  time,  or  six  weeks  elapsing  from  the  appearance 
of  the  first  to  the  third  appearance.  This,  however,  has  changed,  and  from  their  first 
appearance  they  go  on  increasing  until  the  whole  vast  foliage  is  alive  with  them  and 
eaten  up,  and  all  fields  of  hundreds  of  acres  look  as  though  a  fire  had  run  over  them, 
and  the  worm  then  falls  off,  covering  the  ground,  sometimes  one  or  two  inches  deep. 
They  attempt  to  crawl  off,  but  soon  die,  producing  a  most  disagreeable  odor. — [A.  Un- 
derwood, Brazoria. 

Three  broods  a  season. — [Stephen  Harbert,  Colorado. 

Three  distinctive  crops  or  broods  of  them,  being  six  weeks  from  the  time  yon  see 
the  first  crop  of  them  until  they  are  in  force  enough  to  eat  up  the  cotton. — [Natt 
Holman.Fayette. 

In  favorable  seasons  we  have  sometimes  as  many  as  three,  but  often  two  are  suffi- 
cient to  destroy  the  crop,  and  leave  the  third  set  of  moths  nothing  to  deposit  their 
eggs  upon,  and  evening  and  morning  the  air  is  darkened  with  their  rising  to  take 
their  flight.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  445 

QUESTION  5d. — In  ichat  other  situations  besides  tie  folded  cotton-leaves  have  you  known  the 
worms  to  spin  t 

ALABAMA. 

In  more  ways  than  I  can  enumerate,  perhaps.  On  anything  they  can  get  to  when 
ready  to  web  up.  A  weed  or  coru-stalk  will  answer  very  well. — [R.W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

In  the  leaves  of  bushes  and  weeds;  in  fact,  they  web  up  in  almost  any  green  shrub 
or  weed  that  is  in  their  way. — [J.  L.  Hausberger,  Bibb. 

We  have  known  them  to  spin  in  the  leaves  of  peach,  apple,  oak,  and  hickory  trees, 
and  also  in  leaves  of  weeds  and  blades  of  grass. — [  J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

Weeds,  grass,  and  brush. — [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

When  the  cotton-leaves  are  exhausted  they  will  web  themselves  up  in  the  leaves  of 
the  hog-weed,  or  any  other  weed  of  proper  size  which  grows  on  the  hedge-rows  con- 
venient.— [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

(The  worms  have  eaten  most  of  the  leaves  and  young  buds  of  the  plants  in  my  field 
and  are  on  the  move.  They  may  be  seen  moving  through  the  grass,  potato-vines, 
&c.,  and  upon  the  trunks  of  pine  trees,  seldom,  however,  higher  than  five  or  six  feet 
from  the  ground,  as  they  jump  off  or  fall  back  after  climbing  a  short  time.  I  do  not 
see  that  they  have  begun  to  eat  anything  else  than  the  cotton.)  Most  of  the  worms 
of  the  past  week  or  ten  days  have  webbed  up  in  the  cotton-leaves,  and  the  chrysalides 
hang  many  from  the  denuded  leaf-skeletons.  They  are  scarcely  covered  at  all,  the  leaf- 
blades  in  which  they  were  wrapped  having  been  eaten  away,  and  they  hang  almost  free 
in  air.  The  present  brood  of  worms  I  find  webbing  up  in  the  leaves  of  various  plants : 
the  following  I  have  noticed:  sweet-potato,  Cassia  obtusifolia  and  Occidentalis,  Physalis 
lanccolata,  Solanam  Carolinense,  sassafras,  Pharbitis  nil,  Ipomoea  tamnifolia,  Sida  spinosa, 
Ambrosia  artemisiasfolia,  Xanthana  stromarimn,  Euphorbia  maculata,  Amarantus  spinosus, 
Quercus  aqiiatica  (small  trees),  sweet  gum  (small),  watermelon,  Passiflora  incarnata,  and 
young  mulberries ;  the  latter  seems  a  favorite.  Nearly  all  the  leaves  of  half  a  dozen 
young  mulberry  plants  are  rolled  up  by  the  worms.  A  few  worms  of  the  present  brood 
I  have  found  webbed  up  in  the  cracks  of  the  bark  of  old  field-pines  standing  in  the 
field.  Most  that  I  have  seen  have  been  on  east,  north,  and  west  sides.  Have  seen  none 
on  south  sides  of  the  trees.  The  greater  part  of  the  present  brood,  however,  are  web- 
bing up  in  any  leaves  that  they  encounter,  grass  leaves  excepted.  The  webs  made  by 
the  present  brood  of  worms  are  simply  the  leaf  rolled  once  and  bound  together  by  the 
silk.  In  the  case  of  those  worms  webbing  in  the  crevices  of  pine-bark,  a  thin  gauze 
of  the  silk  was  all  that  protected  them ;  through  this  web  the  worm  can  easily  be  seen. 
Thus  far  I  see  no  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  worms  to  make  a  denser  cocoon  than 
those  of  the  preceding  brood.  I  have  noticed  the  moths  occasionally  fly  up  from  a  mass 
of  swee>potato  vines  among  which  Cassia  obtusifolia  and  C.occidcntalis  were  growing. 
Perhaps  the  glands  on  the  leaf-stalks  of  those  two  species  may  have  offered  some  at- 
traction, though  I  have  not  seen  any  moth  upon  the  plants. — [E.  A.  Smith,  Tuscaloosa. 

When  numerous  enough  to  destroy  the  crop  they  will  spin  in  any  leaf  when  there 
are  no  cotton-leaves  left. — [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

They  will  spin  upon  anything. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

I  have  seen  them  webbed  up  in  the  leaves  of  the  mulberry  and  cocklebur. — [R.  H. 
Powell,  Bullock. 

They  will  web  up  in  the  green  leaves  of  weeds  or  bushes  when  most  convenient,  but 
I  have  never  known  them  to  spin  on  anything  dry,  except  the  open  cotton-boll. — [D. 
Lee,  Lowudes. 

They  are  not  confined  to  a  folded  leaf,  but  the  eggs  may  be  found  upon  open  leaves.— 
[J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

On  almost  any  kind  of  weed  or  bush  that  happens  to  be  near  the  field. — [M.  W 
Hand,  Greene. 

On  the  old  cotton-stalks,  limbs  of  trees  (on  the  ground),  bark,  stumps,  and  old  logs, 
all  on  the  ground. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

I  have  never  seen  the  worm  spin  except  in  cotton-leaves. — [J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Mont 
gomery. 

They  have  been  known  to  web  upon  any  object,  on  oak  leaves,  in  stumps,  or  on  com- 
mon weeds,  &c. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

The  worm  must  find  something  in  which  to  web  up  or  perish ;  it  will  use  anything 
green  or  soft  enough  in  which  to  fold  itself  up,  called  spinning. — [H.  Hawkins,  Bar- 
bo  ur. 

As  soon  as  the  third  crop  is  gro  svn,  or  by  the  time  all  the  cotton-leaves  are  consumed 
and  the  worms  crawl  off  onto  any  green  weed  and  spin.  I  have  seen  the  weeds  cov- 
ered with  the  worms  and  not  a  leaf  eaten,  but  all  used  by  the  worm  in  which  to  fold 
himself. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

In  various  kinds ;  the  red-oak  leaf,  potato-vine  leaf,  cocklebur  leaf.  As  before  said, 
I  don't  think  such  amounts  to  anything,  but  I  am  not  positive  about  it ;  at  least  there 
is  no  late  growth  of  cotton  eaten  ;  hence  I  conclude  the  chrysalis  found  on  these  leaves 
don't  produce  the  fly.  The  caterpillar  fly  is  seen  all  a  oug  in  the  latter  mouths.  la 
making  molasses  now  (Novem  ber  26, 1878),  they  get  into  your  juice.— [A.  Jay,  Conecuh. 


446  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

Have  never  seen  a  cotton-  worm  in  any  other  place  than  the  cotton-field. — [R.  B.  Dan- 
lap,  Greene. 

On  smart-weed,  pea-vines,  and  almost  every  kind  of  vegetation. — [  J.  R.  Rogers,  Bul- 
lock. 

In  the  leaves  of  weeds. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

The  worms  in  force  consume  all  the  leaves,  even  th  ose  already  used  as  wrappers 
by  other  worms,  are  then  forced  to  web  on  grass,  weeds,  bushes,  or  cloth  if  placed 
near  the  field.  The  distance  traveled  in  quest  of  a  webbing-place  will  not  exceed  30 
yards.— [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

The  worm  spins  on  the  leaf  of  any  plant  that  may  chance  to  be  convenient. — [J.  N. 
Gilmore,  Sumter. 

After  the  leaf  is  exhausted  they  will  web  in  the  weeds  and  bushes  round  the  field. — 
[R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

None  other. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

Have  never  known  them  spin  in  any  other  situation  than  the  leaf  of  the  cotton- 
plant.— [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

After  the  leaf  is  exhausted  they  will  web  in  the  weeds  and  bushes  near  the  field. — 
[R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

On  the  forest  leaves  and  weeds,  and  any  other  place  they  could  get,  after  having 
passed  through  the  cotton-field  and  eaten  all  the  cotton- leaves  up. — [I.  F.  Culver, 
Bullock. 

Leaves  of  various  weeds. — [J.  H.  Smith,  J.  F.  Calhoun,  Dallas. 

When  the  cotton-leaf  has  been  swept  off  and  the  brood  is  ready  to  "go  to  its  fath- 
ers" or  into  the  chrysalis  state,  they  will  wrap  themselves  up  in  the  leaf  of  the  "  cockle- 
bur,"  or  any  other  leaf  that  is  large  enough  to  envelop  them.  They  spin  not,  neither 
do  they  toil,  but  eat,  eat,  eat,  until  they  empty  our  pockets.  Banquo's  ghost  was  not 
more  appalling  than  the  first  caterpillar  is  to  the  planter. — [I.  D.  Dreisbach,  Baldwin. 

They  fold  up  in  anything  that  will  bend  sufficient  for  the  business.  I  have  often 
found  them  oil  paper  or  old  cloth  or  any  substance  they  can  find  ;  this  is  when  they 
are  very  numerous,  having  eaten  all  the  cotton-leaves  and  leaving  nothing  on  the  cot- 
ton-stalk to  afford  shelter.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

After  the  leaves  of  the  cotton  are  devoured  the  worm  will  spin  itself  up  upon  green 
vegetation  of  almost  any  kind.  They  are  often  seen  in  the  fence-corners  webbiug  up 
to  protect  themselves  from  the  sun.  I  have  seen  them  in  the  cracks  of  the  fencing 
and  upon  dead  timber  securely  webbed. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Various  weeds.— [  Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

ARKANSAS. 

Have  seen  them  spin  from  bushes,  weeds,  and  ends  of  cotton-stalks,  though  not  very 
often.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

I  have  seen  the  web  on  different  kinds  of  weeds. — [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

Can't  say  that  I  have  known  them  to  spin  on  anything  else. — [Norborne  Young, 
Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

I  have  never  known  the  boll- worm  to  spin  on  the  cotton  leaf.  I  am  sure  they  go  into 
the  ground.  I  have  dug  them  out  of  the  ground  in  October  and  always  close  to  the 
stalk,  rarely  even  four  or  five  inches  from  it. — [  J.  M.  McGehee,  Santa  Rosa. 

In  any  weeds  or  grass  that  may  be  near,  particularly  the  rag- weed,  which  is  tender, 
pliant,  and  easily  folded. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 

The  worm  when  it  leaves  the  fields,  as  it  sometimes  does  as  early  as  September, 
always  webs  itself  in  any  green  leaf  which  presents  itself  in  the  shrubbery  along  the 
fence  rows  or  in  the  weeds  or  even  the  grasses  there  growing,  and  the  miller  emerg- 
ing from  the  chrysalis  goes  off  into  the  forest,  leaving  the  cotton-fields  which  are 
sometimes  only  partly  stripped,  and  not  returning  to  them,  though  they  often  become 
green  again  with  new  leaves. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

No  other  leaves.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

None. — [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

On  bark,  fence-rails,  in  fact  on  grass. — [W.  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

They  invariably  web  in  the  cotton ;  generally  in  the  top  leaves.— [S.  P.  Odom, 
Dooly. 

The  worm  will  spin  on  the  small  limbs  of  cotton,  on  bushes  and  palmetto  fans. 
Sometimes  they  get  in  the  wood  and  in  the  jambs  of  the  fences.  I  have  seen  thirty 
or  forty  hanging  by  the  end  of  one  palmetto  leaf  or  fan  as  it  is  called. — [Timothy 
Fussell,  Coffee. 

The  worms  will  spin  on  any  kind  of  soft  leaves  in  the  field,  as  gum,  brier,  &c. — [Wil- 
liam Jones,  Clarke. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  447 

The  usual  mode  is  to  spin  in  the  top  of  the  cotton  from  limb  to  limb,  and  make  a 
perfect  network  like  the  spider. — [M.  Kemp.  Marion. 

I  have  noticed  the  worms  weave  their  webs  in  peach  and  apple  trees  and  other 
trees. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

LOUISIANA. 

In  almost  any  kind  of  a  leaf  large  enough  to  hold  them,  that  is  after  the  cottonleaves- 
are  destroyed.  This  year  I  have  noticed  four  or  five  worms  wrapped  up  in  one  pear- 
sprout  leaf. — [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

While  there  is  any  cotton  left  to  subsist  on,  the  worm  eats  it  until  fully  grown  ;  then 
doubles  itself  up  in  a  cotton-leaf  and  turns  to  a  black  pointed  affair,  which  we  call  a 
cocoon  or  chrysalis.  From  this  emerges  in  due  time  a  moth,  or  fly,  which  proceeds  to 
l^y  eggs  oa  the  cotton-leaves  which  hatch  in  due  time  into  cotton-worms  who  go  the 
same  round.  But  the  cotton-plant  is  their  sole  food  and  place  of  breeding  as  long  as 
any  of  it  exists.  The  last  crop  spin  their  cocoons,  or  web  up,  after  they  have  exhausted 
all  the  cotton,  upon  any  weeds  or  bushes  they  come  to.  They  emerge  from  these  as 
moths,  as  before,  and  may  be  started  up  from  weeds  and  bushes  by  thousands,  but  they 
breed  and  increase  no  more  during  that  season,  so  far  as  I  am  informed. — [Douglas 
M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

The  cotton-worm  will  roll  up  in  anything  that  is  green.— [John  A.  Maryman,  East 
Feliciana. 

I  have  known  it  to  spin  on  the  blades  of  sugar-cane,  on  the  leaves  of  cocklebur  and 
other  weeds.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I  have  often  found  the  chrysalides  enfolded  in  the  meshes  of  open  cotton-bolls,  and 
this  is  common  with  the  last  brood  which  finds  no  leaves  to  web  up  in. — [  J.  Culbertson, 
Rankin. 

In  the  leaves  of  the  cocklebur  and  Jamestown  weed. — [  J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

On  sundry  weeds.  Sometimes  vast  numbers  of  chrysalides  are  seen  on  a  single  weed  ; 
as  many  as  twenty,  thirty,  and  even  more  have  been  counted  on  a  twig  less  than 
two  feet  long.  This  occurs  only  when  the  cotton-leaves  have  been  destroyed  and  the 
caterpillars  have  wandered  in  search  of  suitable  leaves,  till,  I  suppose,  finding  them- 
selves about  to  change  to  chrysalides  or  forced  to  spin,  they  fasten  on  any  convenient 
place  or  anything  from  which  they  may  hang  above  the  ground. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wil- 
kinson. 

They  will  spin  on  almost  any  kind  of  plant  besides  cotton  and  sometimes  hang  by  a 
single  thread  on  cotton  already  stripped.— [Daniel  Cohen,  Wilkinson. 

I  have  seen  this  year  the  worm  spun  up  in  the  hogweed,  grass  growing  on  the  ditches 
running  through  the  cotton-fields.  It  was  their  only  chance,  though,  to  spin  in  that  or 
die. — [John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

The  first  brood  folds  the  leaf  invariably  so  long  as  there  are  leaves.  When  the  plant 
is  bare,  attaches  its  chrysalis  to  the  naked  fibers  of  the  leaf  and  sometimes  to  the 
twigs  of  the  plant. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

On  the  leaves  of  grass,  weeds,  and  almost  every  kind  of  bush  in  reach,  unless  it  is 
the  long-leaved  pine. — [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

No  other. — [Kenneth  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

In  the  leaves  of  any  weeds  or  bushes  I  have  found  the  crysalides  under  boards  and 
fence- rails. — [I.  G.  G.  Garrett,  Claiborne. 

Only  on  young  sassafras  and  persimmons  when  growing  in  fields  of  young  cotton, 
and  probably  only  then  when  blown  or*shaken  off  the  cotton. — [  W.  Spillman,  Clarke. 

In  every  kind  of  leaf  they  could  find,  and  often  in  grass  blades. — [George  V.  Webb, 
Amite. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

No  other.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

I  have  never  known  them  to  spin  in  any  other  place  except  when  the  fields  have 
been  eaten  out,  and  then  have  seen  a  few  wound  up  in  oak-leaves  by  the  side  of  the 
fields.— [James  W.  Grace,  Colletou. 

If  the  cotton -leaves  are  all  eaten  and  there  be  a  leaf  near  of  any  weed,  they  will 
get  on  that  and  fold  it  over ;  otherwise  they  seem  to  be  lost,  and  perish  without  going 
into  chrysalis. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

I  have  never  known  cotton-worms  to  spin  in  other  situations  than  the  cotton-leaves 
My  attention  has  frequently  been  called  to  other  situations  in  which  it  was  said  they 
had  spun.  The  few  of  such  cases  which  have  been  examined  by  me  proved  the  spin- 
ner to  belong  to  another  family.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 


448  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 


They  web  upon  any  leaf  they  can  find ;  have  found  them  on  leaves  of  potatoes  (sweet), 
peas  (Held),  cockle,  on  what  is  known  as  the  hog- weed;  have  found  them  in  locks  of 
cotton  on  the  stalk;  have  found  them  in  the  cotton-seed  in  the  gin-house.  After  all 
leaves  are  gone  oue  can  see  them  hanging  by  slender  threads,  but  strong,  to  the  limbs 
of  cotton-btalks.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

They  will  fold  almost  any  kind  of  leaf,  as  we  call  it,  to  web  up  in.  A  large  number 
of  them  perish  while  in  a  webbed  state  and  a  large  number  come  forth  a  full-fledged 
butterfly.  They  do  not  spin  any  other  way  but  in  a  folded  leaf.— [O.  K.  P.  Garrett, 
Washington. 

I  have  known  them  webbed  in  various  other  plants  ;  they  do  not  confine  themselves 
to  cotton  alone  to  web  in.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

When  the  leaves  are  consumed  they  spin  a  slight  cocoon  and  suspend  from  the  stem 
of  a  leaf  or  branch  of  the  cotton. — [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshnr. 

In  any  kind  of  leaf  they  can  find  after  the  cotton-leaf  is  destroyed. — [S.  B.  Tacka-. 
berry,  Polk. 

In  no  other.— [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

I  never  saw  them  anywhere  else.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

None. — [R.  Wippreclit,  Coraal. 

They  spin  on  all  plants  adjacent  to  the  cotton  field,  on  the  weeds  or  grass  at  the  edge 
of  the  field  or  between  the  rows — [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

Never  on  anything  but  the  cotton  leaf  or  stalk. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rnsk. 

I  have  seen  them  on  the  careless  and  other  weeds  ;  in»fact,  they  will  web  on  most 
anything  after  they  have  eaten  up  the  cotton. — [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

On  the  naked  cotton-limb,  weeds,  and  grass  after  the  leaves  were  devoured. — [ J.  W. 
Jackson,  Titus. 

No  other.— [Natt,  Holman,  Fayette. 

Most  unquestionably,  and  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  they  burrow  in  the  ground 
at  or  near  the  precise  spot  where  they  lower  themselves  after  leaving  their  leafy  cov- 
ering by  a  delicate  web  from  the  cotton-bush  to  the  earth,  because  they  are  there 
traced  and  unearthed. — [William  J.  Jones,  Galveston. 

After  the  process  of  wrapping  themselves  in  their  own  meshes  is  complete  they  free 
themselves  from  their  leafy  covering,  showing  a  perfect  cocoon,  and  suspend  themselves, 
in  their  effort  to  reach  the  ground,  by  a  tiny  thread.  When  they  reach  the  earth,  they 
work  or  bore  themselves  below  its  surface  with  wonderful  rapidity  far  enough  to 
evade  all  ordinary  casualties  and  to  be  thoroughly  hid  from  view.  There  they  remain 
till  some  are  disturbed  by  the  plow,  while  the  remainder  are  content  to  hibernate  till 
their  natural  instinct  prompts  them  to  take  wing  and  seek  for  their  special,  if  not 
only  food,  the  cotton-leaf.  The  fact  that  they  appear  at  one  time  late  and  another 
season  early,  or  are  more  numerous  at  one  period  or  place  than  another,  or  in  some 
seasons  not  coming  forth  at  all,  may  be  due  to  local  causes  yet  remaining  to  be  dis- 
covered. The  best  word  the  most  enlightened  planter  can  yet  say  of  this  titfulness  of 
instinct  is  that  it  is  a  profound  mystery  in  nature.  If  the  growth  of  the  cotton-plant 
were  such  as  to  allow  us  to  fallow  our  lands  in  the  fall,  we  might  destroy  a  vast  num- 
ber of  these  cocoons.  This  occasionally  happens  where  a  crop  has  met  with  an  early 
disaster,  as  in  my  own  crop  hero  the  last  year,  a  field  of  300  acres  of  cotton  being 
destroyed  by  a  cyclone  on  the  15th  of  September,  and  consequently  perhaps  very  Jew 
worms  appearing  this  year  very  late  in  the  season  and  doing  no  sensible  damage.  We 
have  had  no  frost  as  yet  (November  23);  the  cotton  is  nearly  in  full  foliage,  many 
blooms  and  some  few  young  bolls  from  the  second  growth  showing  themselves,  but  no 
appearance  of  the  worm.  It  was  this  second  growth  of  cotton  upon  which  the  moth 
tarried  this  season. — [William  J.  Jones,  Virginia  Point. 


QUESTIOX  5e. — Have  you,  ever  known  the  chrysalis  to  survive  a  frost  or  to  be  found  in 
sound  and  healthy  condition  in  winter? 

ALABAMA. 

I  never  have  known  the  chrysalis  to  live  through  winter.  I  do  not  believe  the  worm 
lives  more  than  ten  days  in  the  chrysalis  state.  I  examined  quite  a  number  of  them 
last  September,  when  they  had  spun  on  weeds  after  the  cotton  had  been  eaten,  and 
never  was  able  to  find  anything  in  the  web  after  ten  days ;  they  had  all  matured  and 
come  out. — [I.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

I  have  not.  Many  farmers  think  differently.  The  chrysalis  of  the  cut- worm  is  mis- 
taken for  the  cotton-worm.  My  observation  has  been  that  a  chrysalis  placed  on  the 
ground  invariably  perishes,  by  sunshine  or  moisture,  provided  ants  leave  it  long 
enough  to  succumb  to  those  influences.— [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 


APPENDIX ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  449 

Have  plowed  up  in  the  spring  what  anpears,  to  unskilled  observers,  to  be  identical 
•with  the  chrysalis  of  the  cotton-worm.— [J.  H.  Smith,  J.  F.  Calhoun,  Dallas. 

I  never  have,  though  I  am  of  the  opinion  that,  they  do  hide  away  somewhere,  and 
that  they  survive  mild  winters.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

No. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

Have  not. — [J.  L.  Hausberger,  Bibb. 

Never. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

I  now  (November 29)  send  a  small  box  of  chrysalides, which  maybe  of  advantage  in 
determining  the  manner  and  habits  of  spinning  after  all  the  leaves  of  the  cotton-plant 
have  been  eaten  up  and  nothing  left  except  weeds  or  prass  on  the  edges  of  the  lield  or 
on  ditches.  The  chrysalis  has  been  known  to  live  all  winter,  and  also  in  the  moth 
state.  I  have  known  the  chrysalis  to  survive  a  frost ;  I  have,  in  a  few  instances,  seen 
the  chrysalis  turned  up  with  the  furrow  when  preparing  land  in  early  spring,  which 
had  certainly  been  thus  preserved  under  or  in  the  ground  all  winter.  Col.  Eli  S. 
Shorter,  of  Eufaula,  whose  land  joins  mine,  imprisoned  a  chrysalis  thus  found,  by 
placing  it  in  a  glass  jar,  and  it  came  out  a  caterpillar  moth.  I  have  seen  many  of  the 
moths  in  mild  weather  in  the  winters  of  1873  and  1H74,  and  I  am  confident  that  both 
the  moth  and  the  chrysalis  survive  the  winter,  the  winter  being  mild. — [H.  Hawk- 
ins, Barbour. 

Never.  I  have  no  idea  that  they  exist  in  a  chrysalis  state  in  winter;  but,  as  before 
said,  in  the  fly  state. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Have  never  known  a  chrysalis  to  survive  the  winter. — [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

I  have  never  noticed  them  but  a  very  short  time  after  webbing  up ;  generally  in  about 
three  weeks  they  hatch,  and  I  never  knew  what  became  of  tuein ;  there  are  so  many 
insects  that  resemble  the  moth  that  it  is  hard  to  distinguish  them. — [H.  C.  Brown, 
Wilcox. 

I  think  most  of  them  are  destroyed  by  frost,  but  I  do  not  think  they  all  are.  When 
they  have  protection  from  cold,  they  survive  the  winter  here. — [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

Never.  The  moth  comes  out  at  the  usual  time  or  the  chrysulis  dies.  I  do  not  know 
the  number  of  days— I  believe  not  exceeding  ten — till  the  moth  emerges  from  its  thin 
shell. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

I  have  not  known  the  chrysalis  to  survive  the  frost  or  be  found  in  a  sound  and  healthy 
condition  iu  winter,  though  others  believe  otherwise. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

In  this  locality  the  moth  comes  forth  before  cold  weather,  and  I  do  not  remember  to 
have  seen  a  chrysalis  alive  after  a  freeze. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

Yes.  Thisjast  winter,  in  preparing  the  land  for  planting,  we  plowed  them  up,  and 
to  all  appearances  they  were  as  lively  and  vigorous  as  when  first  webbed  up  on  the 
stalk.  Have  put  them  in  open-mouthed  bottles  in  a  warm  room  and  they  would  come 
out  a  moth  in  a  few  days.— [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

Have  not,  though  I  have  never  noticed  particularly.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

I  think  not ;  they  become  torpid  under  the  influence  of  cold  and  rarely  survive  a 
killing  frost.— [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Never  have. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

Never  have. — [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

Dr.  N.  A.  Lee  says  that  he  has  often  seen  them  during  the  cold  weather  in  January 
and  February  when  he  had  plowing  done  in  the  field  where  cotton  had  been  planted 
the  year  previous,  and  this  after  frost,  and  they  in  a  healthy  condition. — [P.  D.  Bowles, 
Conecuh. 

Yes,  all  times  of  winter  under  the  ground. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

I  never  did. — [  J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

Have  not. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

This,  perhaps,  is  the  most  important  question  asked,  and  if  it  could  be  answered  with 
certainty,  would  do  more  to  determine  where  the  next  annual  generation  comes  from  than 
anything  else.  I  have  found  chrysalides  during  the  early  spring  mouths  in  fresh -plowed 
land  that  I  belici-cd  to  be  the  cotton-worm.  Have  seen  the  webbed  chrysalis  in  the 
leaves  after  frost.  Do  not  think  that  late  in  the  season  they  are  developed  into  moths. 
If  they  do  survive  the  winter,  I  think  it  is  by  being  accidentally  covered  by  the  loose 
earth.  The  black  lands  south  of  this  are  very  favorable  for  this,  as  they  are  soft  and 
porous,  and  after  rains  large  numbers  of  them  would  evidently  be  covered.  The 
chrysalis  has  a  vermicular  motion;  are  pointed  at  each  end.  May  they  not  have  the 
power  of  penetrating  the  earth  ?— [R.  T.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

This  could  hardly  be  answered  satisfactorily,  from  the  fact  that  there  are  so  many 
other  insects  that  iu  the  chrysalis  look  so  much  like  them.  Some  think  they  have 
found  them  in  the  winter,  but  I  can't  say  whether  to  believe  so  or  not,  but  rather 
incline  to  the  opinion  that  they  remain  here  iu  the  moth  state.— [R.  W.  Russell, 
Lowndes. 

Except  in  cotton  that  had  been  put  up  in  a  house. — [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

The  colored  people  tell  us  that  they  plow  them  up  frequently  this  spring,  and  they 
are  all  alive,  and  will,  no  doubt,  hatch  moths  at  the  proper  time.  A  gentleman  of 
our  acquaintance  experimented  on  one  last  spring,  and  it  hatched  out  a  moth  in  the 

29  C  I 


450  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

first  week  in  May.  An  intelligent  colored  man,  of  long  experience  -with  the  cotton- 
worm,  informs  us  that  the  chrysalides  th.it.  are  plowed  up  in  the  spring  are  those  which 
fail  to  hatch  in  the  fall,  in  consequence  of  the  lateness  of  the  season  and  the  super- 
vention of  cold  weather  ;  that  they  ultimately  fall  on  the  ground  and  hide  themselves 
by  boring  iuto  it. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

The  chrysalides  remain  in  the  ground,  in  cotton-stalks,  in  corn-stalks,  about  old 
stumps  and  trees,  in  woods  adjacent  to  cotton-fields,  through  the  winter.  This  I  know 
from  nersonnl  observation  and  from  other  persons  who  have  made  careful  examina- 
tions.-^. T.  Dale,  Miller. 

I  have  never  noticed  one  after  the  weather  gets  cold. — [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

Yes:  have  found  them  healthy  in  January,  taken  out  of  the  ground  and  cotton- 
stalks.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

Can't  say  that  1  have. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

The  chrysalis  as  such  never  remains,  but  going  through  the  natural  mutations  the 
moth  leaves  the  vicinity  of  the  fields. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

I  have  seen  thousands  of  bales  of  cotton  destroyed  in  Montgomery  and  Lowndes 
Counties,  Alabama,  but  have  never  seen  the  chrysalis  of  the  worm  in  any  form. — [  J. 
M.  McGehee,  Santa  Rosa. 

NOTE. — It  is  maintained  by  some  planters  that  the  chrysalides  of  the  Alctia  argiUacea 
is  often  plowed  up  in  the  spring.  As  a  planter  of  fifty  years'  experience,  I  have  failed  to 
find  such  chrysalides.  I  have  repeatedly  requested  those  who  claimed  to  have  seen 
them  either  to  subject  them  to  proof  by  incubation  or  to  furnish  me  with  them,  and 
I  would  do  so  in  order  to  set  the  matter  at  rest.  Up  to  this  date  no  realization  of  this 
theory  has  been  arrived  at. — [Robert  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

I  have  collected  a  number  of  chrysalides  and  hung  them  in  a  northern  exposure, 
where  they  survived  a  temperature  of  12°  Fahr.  After  this  I  left  home,  and  watched 
them  no  longer. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

Another  correspondent  (Putnam  County)  writes :  "  During  the  winter  of  1874-75, 1 
found  a  number  of  chrysalides  in  a  sound,  healthy  state,  after  we  had  bad  several 
frosts  and  freezes;  but  they  were  protected  by  the  bark  on  dead  trees  or  stumps  about 
the  field,  and  I  think  that  this  is  rather  the  exception  than  the  rule/' 

I  have,  but  generally  in  a  protected  spot. — [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

I  have  not. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

No.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

I  have  not  known  the  chrysalis  to  survive  a  frost  or  found  healthy  in  winter. — [T. 
Fussell,  Coffee. 

I  never  have.  The  chrysalis  wings  and  migrates  before  frost.  The  larva  and 
chrysalis  found  on  the  stalk  after  frost  perishes  before  migration. — [S.  P.  Odom, 
Dooly. 

I  never  see  any  appearance  of  life  in  the  chrysalis  after  frost  and  cold  weather  sets 
in. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

LOUISIANA. 

No.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Corcordia. 

I  have  heard  of  the  chrysalis  being  plowed  np  itr  the  spring,  and  also  of  the  moths 
being  found  in  sheltered  places  during  winter — in  hay  and  fodder  stacks,  outbuildings, 
under  the  bark  of  old  logs  and  stumps — but  I  cannot  say  that  I  have  ever  seen  any- 
thing of  the  sort.— [Douglas  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

I  have  known  the  chrysalis  to  survive  winters,  having  plowed  them  up  in  February 
in  a  live  condition. — [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

I  have  found  the  chrysalis  when  plowing  in  the  month  of  February  the  year  pre- 
ceding the  destruction  of  the  cotton.  They  were  really  so  thick  in  the  ground  that  I 
was  very  much  discouraged.  But  after  breaking  the  ground  up  completely  there  came  a 
rain  that  lasted  three  days  and  nights ;  then  the  ground  froze  and  destroyed  the  worms 
in  the  chrysalis  form,  and  to  my  surprise  we  had  a  good  crop  year. — [John  A.  Mary- 
man,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

My  observation  and  experience  has  led  me  to  conclude  the  Anomis  is  native  and 
does  hibernate  in  some  form ;  that  cultivation  in  July  and  August  tinder  certain  con- 
ditions of  season,  such  as  plowing  the  land  before  the  surface-soil  is  in  good  state  for 
plowing,  produces  an  artificial  state  of  heat  and  moisture  which  is  the  most  favorable 
for  the  hatching  of  eggs.  The  egg  must  survive  the  winter  protected  in  the  ground. — 
[E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

Often.— [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

I  never  have.— [Kenneth  Clark,  Chickasaw. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  451 

Have  hunted  for  them  after  frost,  but  found  none. — [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

No.— [C.  Welch,  Coviugtou. 

Yes ;  but  I  am  not  certain  later  than  December.  One  season  I  supposed  from  ap- 
pearances that  I  had  some  around  in  January,  February,  and  March  ;  but  when  warm 
weather  came  they  manifested  no  signs  of  vitality,  and  on  close  inspection  I  found 
them  dead.  They  may  have  perished  in  January  tor  aught  I  know.  How  long  after 
December  they  survived  I  am  unable  to  state. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

Know  nothing  as  to  the  winter  quarters  of  this  insect.— [John  C.  Russel,  Madison. 

I  have  found  hundreds  of  chrysalides  while  ginning  cotton  as  late  as  January,  still 
living.— [J.  Culbertson,  Rankin. 

Found  them  all  dead  this  year  after  the  first  killing  frost. — [W.  Spillman,  Clark. 

I  have  known  them  to  hatch  out  of  chrysalis  after  frost,  but  they  have  never  re- 
mained but  a  few  days  after  frost;  they  soon  die,  but  doubtless  deposit  their  eggs 
before  they  die,  and  the  eggs  hatch  the  next  year. — [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

At  the  close  of  last  season  I  had  a  number  of  the  cotton-worms  in  chrysalis  state, 
but  they  were  destroyed  by  the  severe  freeze  about  Christmas. — [G.  W.  Smith- Vauiz, 
Madison. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

No.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

Never. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

We  have  never  known,  nor  have  I  heard  of  any  one  else  ever  finding  the  chrysalis 
after  frosts  or  during  the  winter. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

I  have  never  known  the  chrysalis  to  survive  even  a  slight  frost,  frosts  so  light  as  to 
have  been  unfelt  by  any  except  rarely  sensitive  plants. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

They  in  some  way  become  buried  under  the  soil,  and  are  preserved  throughout  the 
winter.  Many  of  them  are  plowed  up  in  the  winter,  and  are  in  a  sound  state ;  believe 
they  can  be  kept  safely  in  the  seed.  Could  not  the  chrysalis  have  beeu  brought  here 
in  1834,  in  the  boat- load  of  seed  that  came  that  year  from  New  Orleans  ?— [P.  S.  Clarke, 
Waller. 

I  have  never  found  a  sound  or  perfect  living  chrysalis  after  a  severe  frost,  with  cold 
enough  to  form  ice. — [ J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

I  do  not  think  tbey  survive  a  freeze  in  a  chrysalis  state.  I  do  not  think  they  are  to 
be  found  in  a  healthy  condition  in  winter.  I  am  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  the  moth 
is  migratory  ;  for  instance,  some  seasons  we  failed  to  have  the  worm  for  more  than  one 
year  in  succession  ;  then  again  it  was  upon  us.  The  question,  Where  has  it  been  all 
the  while,  asleep  for  two  or  more  years  ?  Hardly.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

Not  after  a  severe  frost. — [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

I  have  not.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

No.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

I  have  found  the  chrysalides  in  apparently  healthy  condition  during  winter  in  seed 
cotton,  where  it  had  gotten  by  picking,  and  in  hay.— [A.  Schroeter,  Burnet. 

Yes.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

Never. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

They  will,  and  do  survive  the  frost  in  the  ground,  and  have  been  found  in  winter 
occasionally. — [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

Never.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

I  think  1  have.— [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

No,  never.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

Not  of  the  cotton-miller  ;  they  always  come  out,  and  thousands  die  if  the  cotton  is 
leafless. — [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 


QUESTION  5/. — Have  you  ever  found  the  moth  hibernating  or  flying  during  mild  winter 
weather  f 

ALABAMA. 

Often.— [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

Yes ;  have  found  them  in  trash,  under  old  logs  and  brush. — [John  D.  Johnston, 
Sumter. 

I  never  have  seen  a  moth  here  in  winter  at  anv  time. — [J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

I  never  did.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

Often  in  winter  when  the  sun  shines  warm  the  moth  flies  out. — [J.  S.  Hausberger, 
Bibb. 


452  EEPOKT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

Yes.— [.J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

In  fact  I  looked  everywhere  except  on  the  roofs  of  houses  ;  moreover  several  fields 
•were  just  plowed,  and  1  had  again  occasion  to  convince  myself  that  there  are  no  pupai 
of  Alctia  in  the  ground.  I  have  to  repeat  here  that  I  feel  more  than  ever  convinced 
that  Alctia  does  not  hibernate  in  these  more  northern  portions  of  the  cotton-belt. — 
[E.  A.  Schwarz,  Eufaula. 

Frequently.  The  late  winter,  1878-'79,  has  been  unusually  cold,  yet  moths  have 
been  seen  flying  from  the  bark  of  old  trees  on  the  first  appearance  of  mild  weather. — 
[H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

They  are  frequently  seen  of  warm,  pleasant  evenings  in  winter,  and  sometimes  come 
to  the  lamps  at  night  and  get  their  wings  singed  like  other  candle  flies.— [Dr.  John 
Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

In  plowing  in  the  spring  and  breaking  up  crusty  earth,  where  clods  rise  before  the 
plow,  these  flies  are  sometimes  seen  thus  turned  out,  or  at  least  flies  which  we  regard 
as  the  caterpillar  fly,  and  in  removing  old  heaps  where  logs  or  limbs  or  trash  have 
been  piled,  in  such  places  the  fly  is  sometimes  turned  out  in  the  early  spring. — [An- 
drew Jay,  Conecuh. 

That  the  moth  lives  through  the  winter  admits  of  no  doubt  whatever  in  our  climate, 
provided  the  winter  is  a  mild  one.  If  it  is  mild  I  can  find  moths  any  month.  The 
moth  has  instinct  enough  to  find  comfortable  quarters.  The  idea  that  they  are  brought 
here  by  the  south  wind  certainly  cannot  hold  good.  If  they  should  only  come  by  this 
means,  would  they  not  come  every  year  alike,  or  nearly  so? — [H  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

Have  never  seen  a  moth  in  winter. — [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 

We  have  just  passed  some  good  frosts,  yet  the  fly  is  seen  daily  in  manufacturing 
molasses,  November  26,  187b. — [Andrew  Jay,  Couecuh. 

Have  seen  moths  at  that  time  which  quite  resembled  the  cotton-worm  moth.  But 
cannot  say  reliably  that  it  was. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

I  don't  think  I  have,  for  the  reason  'that  the  moth  is  an  exceedingly  shy  insect,  never 
seen  flying  about  in  day  time  except  when  molested. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowmles. 

No.— [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

Frequently.— [J  H.  Smith,  J.  F.  Calhoun,  Dallas. 

The  moth  has  been  securely  wintered  in  dead  logs  and  in  hollow  trees.  The  fall  of 
deadened  timber  often  discloses  their  presence  in  quantity  when  opened  or  bark  falls 
oft*.  They  have  been  found  in  mild  winters  flying  out  in  the  open  air,  and  seen  as  late 
as  February  in  their  hiding  places. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Yes  ;  they  travel  in  warm  seasons  of  winter ;  generally  hide  themselves  under  the 
bark  of  dead  pine  trees,  whore  the  bark  becomes  loose  upon  dead  pines. — [  J.  C.  Ma- 
thews,  Dale. 

All  times  in  mild  winter  around  fodder-stacks  and  barns.  In  our  opinion  it  is  only 
the  moth  that  comes  out  from  the  chrysalis  which  has  lived  hero  underground  through 
winter  that  damages  the  crop. — [Knox,  Miuge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

I  think  I  have  found  it  on  the  walls  of  a  dwelling  and  about  a  lamp  in  mild  weather. 
[J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

This  is  a  well-known  fact,  and  is  answered  above,  yes.— [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

Yes ;  they  are  very  common  in  mild  winter  weather. — [H.  A.  Stolen werck,  Perry. 

Yes.-[ J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

Since  last  writing  we  have  had  two  or  three  heavy  white  frosts,  viz,  on  the  nights 
of  the  22d,  23d,  and  26th  October.  On  the  morning  of  the  23d  three  moths  came  from 
the  chrysalides  which  I  have  under  a  glass  shade,  on  a  shelf  on  my  porch,  exposed  to 
the  weather.  The  moths  were  benumbed  with  cold  and  apparently  dead,  but  they  all 
revived  after  being  brought  into  a  warm  room.  I  turned  them  loose  next  day  while 
it  was  warm  and  pleasant.  Last  night  the  thermometer  stood  outdoors  at  60°  Fahr., 
and  on  visiting  my  baited  trees  I  found  several  of  the  cotton-moths  there.  They  seem 
to  lie  up  during  the  cold  spells  and  to  come  out  when  the  weather  moderates. — [E.  A. 
Smith.] 

I  judge  by  the  scarcity  of  the  cotton-moths  since  cold  weather  that  they  are  not  able 
to  stand  the  cold,  and  have  either  been  killed  or  forced  to  seek  secure  quarters.  I  have 
found  none  yet  in  bark  of  trees  or  elsewhere.  Some  of  the  chrysalides  of  the  last  brood 
are  still  rolled  in  the  leaves  in  the  cotton-field,  but  a  few  which  I  examined  some  days 
ago  seem  to  have  died.  These  chrysalides  are  slightly  shriveled  up,  and  some  of  them 
are  certainly  decaying,  if  I  may  judge  by  the  smell  when  they  are  opened. — [E.  A.  Smith, 
Tuscaloosa. 

I  have  often  seen  the  moth  flying  during  mild  winter  weather  that  resembles  the  cot- 
ton-moth :  we  call  them  here  candle-flies,  and  find  them  about  old  houses  and  barns. — 
[H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Frequently  about  my  gin-house  and  barn. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

I  have. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

I  have  not.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

I  have.— [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 


APPENDIX    II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  453 

Frequently,  especially  over  the  roof  of  the  gin-houses  late  in  the  evening. — [D.  Lee, 
Lowndes. 

I  think  I  have  seen  the  moth  flying  during  mild  winter  weather. — [A.  D.  Edwards, 
Macon. 

ARKANSAS. 

I  have  seen  what  I  took  to  be  the  cotton-moth  in  mild  winters. — [Norborne  Young, 
Columbia. 

No.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

1  have  not.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

No. — [ J.  Bradford,  Leon. 

Often.— [J.  M.  McGehee,  Santa  Rosa. 

Not  earlier  than  February,  and  one  solitary  fly,  ragged  and  worn,  and  on  one  occasion 
only.  The  insect  does  not  hibernate,  but  continues  to  carry  on  the  process  of  nature 
during  the  >  ear,  the  intervals  between  successive  generations  being  possibly  longer 
during  winter. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

A  grassy  field  accidentally  took  fire  in  January,  1876.  As  the  old  pines  with  partly 
decayed  sap  would  catch  tire  the  moths  were  observed  to  escape  from  their  hiding 
places  in  large  numbers. — [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

I  havo  not. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

I  think  I  have  seen  moth  flying  about  during  the  mild  winter  months  of  warm  win- 
ters, but  could  not  say  that  they  were  the  moth  above  matured. — [E.  M.  Thompson, 
Jackson. 

Have  never  found  the  moth  flying  in  winter. — [T.  Fussell,  Coffee. 

Have  on  several  occasions. — [  William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

I  never  have. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

I  have  not. — [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

I  do  not  belive  they  do. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

I  carefully  searched  the  stems  without  finding  any  eggs  of  the  moth.  An  examina- 
tion of  the  woods,  logs,  and  brushwood  yielded  no  chrysalides  of  the  cotton-worm. 
From  the  appearance  of  the  chrysalides  on  the  plants  it  must  be  conceded  that  the  last 
worms  do  not  quit  the  plant  nor  prepare  themselves  for  winter  in  any  way.  In  my 
opinion  the  chrysalides  which  do  not  yield  the  moth  and  are  retarded  by  the  severity 
of  the  weather  cannot  conceal  themselves  in  any  way  in  the  ground,  and  must  proba- 
bly perish  from  the  cold  or  in  the  process  of  removing  the  dead  plants  to  prepare  for 
a  fresh  crop  of  cotton. — [A.  R.  Grote. 

LOUISIANA. 

Never.  There  is  a  moth  seen  on  mild  days,  flying  about  the  sheds  and  gins,  but  it  is 
not  the  cotton-moth. — [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

I  have  never  seen  the  moths  flying  during  mild  winter  weather. — [John  A.  Mary- 
man,  East  Feliciana. 

I  have  never  seen  the  moth  during  the  winter. — [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Never  later  than  December.  I  have  been  assured  that  large  numbers  of  Aletia  were 
seen  in  the  Black  River  region  in  Louisiana  flitting  about  in  warm  evenings  in  the 
winter  of  18GG-'67  and  1867-'G8,  and  also  in  the  southwest  part  of  this  county. 
Although  so  assured  by  intelligent,  close  observers,  well  acquainted  with  this  insect, 
I  do  not  feel  entirely  certain  ;  I  think  it  probable,  however,  that  some  survive  the 
winter  here  in  the  lowlands. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

The  moth  usually  flies  in  the  evening,  between  sunset  and  dark,  and  at  that  hour  I 
have  seen  thousands  of  them  sporting  of  a  mild  evening  in  winter. — [J.  Culbertson, 
Rankin. 

I  am  satisfied  they  are  with  us  all  winter.— [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

No.— [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

I  have  not. — [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

Never. — [Kenneth  Clark,  Chicknsaw. 

I  have  never  seen  a  live  moth  later  than  the  15th  of  November.— [I.  G.  G.  Garrett, 
Claiborne. 

Often  in  warm  days  about  old  out-buildings.— [W.  Spillman,  Clarke. 

Never.— [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

No.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

Never.— [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

I  have  not  found  the  moth  hibernating,  but  I  have  heard  others  say  that  they  have. 


454  REPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

It  goes  und«r  the  thick  bark  of  dead  trees,  and  where  large  pieces  of  the  sap  wood  of 
dead  pine-trees  are  partially  separated  from  the  heart  but  still  fast  to  the  tree,  make 
good  winter  quarters  for  them. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

I  found  the  moth  both  flying  and  hibernating  last  winter,  which,  however,  was  the 
mildest  winter  in  my  memory. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

I  have  never  found  the  moth  after  very  cold  weather,  and  have  never  seen  the  moth 
outside  the  cotton-field.  I  do  not  believe  they  hibernate  in  this  portion  of  the  country, 
though  I  have  found  one  farmer  who  said  he  found  them  plenty  in  March  at  an  old 
cotton-gin.  If  they  remained  in  the  moth  state  all  winter  they  would  commence  earlier 
on  the  cotton  ;  if  in  the  chrysalis  state,  so  soon  as  they  become  moths  in  the  spring 
their  work  would  begin,  and  we  would  have  them  every  year,  instead  of  only  occasion- 
ally, as  we  do  now.— [J.  M.  Glasco,  Gilmer. 

No.— [A.  Schroeter,  Double  Horn. 

The  uncontradicted  history  of  the  advent  of  the  moth  establishes  the  fact  that  they 
first  show  themselves  in  the  lower  latitudes,  on  or  bordering  the  coast-line,  and  then 
spread  rapidly  in  the  interior,  reaching  very  nearly  to  the  parallel  31° ;  that  they  may 
be  said  to  be  coetaneous  in  their  movements.  This  wide  belt  of  territory,  perhaps  fully 
one  hundred  miles,  which  the  moth  compasses  in  so  short  a  time,  which,  considering 
its  delicate  structure  and  clumsiness  of  flight,  would  make  it  next  to  impossible  for  it 
to  traverse  in  so  brief  a  time,  must,  therefore,  refute  the  theory  of  its  migration  from 
any  distant  locality.  This  leaves  but  little  doubt  that  the  moth  springs  each  season 
from  the  field  of  their  last  year's  operations,  and  the  point  left  most  in  doubt  is  their 
prolonged  preservation. — [William  J.  Jones,  Galveston. 

Yes.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

No.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

I  tell  you  the  moth  cannot  winter ;  its  life  is  too  short  and  too  tender :  the  slightest 
cold  will  kill  it.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

No.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Have  never  seen  the  cotton-moth  hibernating  or  flying  during  mild  winter  weather, 
but  have  seen  other  moths  doing  so.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

The  moth  has  been  noticed  to  fly  in  very  mild  winter  weather.  I  have  seen  one  oc- 
casionally in  January,  during  unusual  mild  weather,  and  so  have  others. — [J.  H. 
Krancher,  Austin. 

Never.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Have  not. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

Yes.— [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

I  have  seen  them  flying  after  frost,  and  have  often  found  them  under  bark  of  trees 
(dead),  logs,  and  trash  when  winter  set  in.  Some  were  living  and  some  had  perished.— 
[J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

Seen  them  in  the  middle  of  winter,  on  calm,  warm  days,  flying  around  drifts  and 
logs,  trash,  &c.— [Natt.  Holmau,  Fayette. 


QUESTION  f>  g. — How  late  in  the  spring  Tins  the  moth  been  found  alive  f 

ALABAMA. 

I  never  have  seen  a  moth  in  the  spring. — [J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

January. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

All  the  spring.— [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

Our  opinion,  formed  from  our  observation,  is  that  the  cotton-moth  has  become  ac- 
climated and  naturalized  to  the  climate  of  this  section,  and  may  be  seen  at  all  seasons 
of  the  year.  Few  it  may  be  comparatively,  but  still  they  are  here.— [Dr.  John  Peuri- 
foy,  Montgomery. 

Cannot  answer.  Have  dug  up  the  chrysalis  in  July  on  a  muddy  ditch  bank. — [H. 
A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

Have  seen  them  as  early  as  March. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

May.— [I.  D.Dreisbach,  Baldwin. 

Last  of  February  and  first  of  March.  One  strong  proof  that  they  hibernate  here  is 
that  the  chrysalis  has  been  plowed  up,  put  in  a  bottle,  and  when  hatched  out  proved 
to  be  the  genuine  cotton-fly. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

The  last  of  May.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

During  entire  winter  and  until  warm  weather. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

At  any  time,  late  or  early.    But  very  few  cotton  planters  look  for  them  until  about 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAE.  455 

midsummer,  "because  it  has  never  been  known  to  do  any  harm  in  the  spring. — [D.  Lee, 
Lowndes. 

I  think  it  safe  to  say  each  and  every  month. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

They  are  here  always,  in  this  warm  climate  ;  they  can  survive  winter;  this  is  their 
native  home.— [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

As  late  an  April,  if  I  remember  correctly. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

I  suppose  about  May  ia  as  soon  as  they  are  commonly  seen  ;  the  fly  must  have  de- 
posited the  egg  for  that  worm  in  April. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Auy  time  after  first  noticed,  and  the  later  the  greater  probability  of  finding  it. — [C. 
C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

On  the  8th  of  April,  1868.  I  had  an  old  barn  taken  down  and  found  hundreds  of  the 
moths  under  the  roof,  active  and  capable  of  flying  vigorously.  That  year,  iu  my  judg- 
ment, the  moths  that  hibernated  here  propagated  successfully. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

I  have  seen  the  moth  in  winter  and  early  spring.  I  do  not  think  I  have  ever  seen 
one  later  than  April,  from  what  I  thought  to  be  the  previous  year's  crop. — [R.  T.  Will- 
iams, Montgomery. 

Have  noticed  them  as  late  as  the  first  of  May,  flying  around  lights  on  a  damp,  warm 
evening,  and  some  springs  in  great  numbers. — [John  D,  Johnston,  Sumter. 

Have  never  seen  them. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

I  have  never  seen  one  in  spring. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowudes. 

GEORGIA. 

I  never  saw  the  moth  in  the  spring;  the  moth  is  anight  insect,  and  the  first  appear- 
ance of  the  worm  is  the  eggs  under  the  leaves. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 
May  15. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

Never  saw  the  moth  in  spring. — [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 
I  have  never  seen  nor  heard  of  them  in  spring. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 
Have  found  them  in  July  not  hatched.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 
During  the  whole  spring. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

LOUISIANA. 

Never  saw  a  moth  in  spring. — [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

The  chrysalis  can  be  found  all  through  the  spring. — [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I  have  already  stated  that  I  have  seen  the  moth  in  every  month  of  the  year,  but  this 
is  exceptional,  and  when  it  occurs  it  does  rot  follow  that  the  worms  will  be  abundant. 
That  seems  to  depend  on  the  hygrometric  condition  of  the  season  from  June  '20  till 
September. — [ J.  Culbertson,  Rankin. 

I  think  you  could  see  them  any  month  by  close  observation. — [T.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

I  hare  never  seen  them  in  the  spring. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

I  do  not  know  that  it  is  ever  found  alive  at  all  in  early  spring.— [C.  Welch,  Coving- 
ton. 

I  am  not  sure  that  I  ever  saw  it  alive  in  any  of  its  stages  at  any  time  from  last  of 
December  till  latter  part  of  May.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

I  think  they  pass  the  winter  in  the  chrysalis  state,  but  very  few  escape  destruction 
by  the  birds,  the  ichneumon,  and  other  insects  in  summer.  The  flies  come  out  in  about 
eight  days  after  the  chrysalis  is  formed  ;  later  in  the  season  it  is  sometimes  two  or 
three  weeks  before  the  fly  comes  out. — [I.  G.  G.  Garrett,  Claiborne. 

The  last  crop  of  one  year  ;  at  least  some  of  them  live  until  time  to  lay  eggs  the  next 
year.— [W.  Spillmau,  Clarke. 

I  have  never  seen  them  in  the  spring,  and  never  until  July  8  and.  on  to  September. — 
I  George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 
I  never  saw  one  in  spring. — [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

From  June  to  November ;  have  never  seen  it  earlier  than  June  nor  later  than  Novem- 
ber, though  Dr.  Reese  declares  he  has  seen  the  moth  out  in  mild  weather  in  winter 
and  believes  it  hibernates  in  that  condition,  becoming  torpid  on  the  advent  of  cold 
weather ;  this,  however,  is  contrary  to  our  observation  and  we  believe  is  a  mistake. — 
[James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

This  cannot  be  answered.  If  alive  at  any  time  in  the  spring,  it  has  been  in  that 
vicinity  all  winter.  This  is  certain,  for  the  moth  would  deposit  its  eggs  on  the  first 
and  nearest  cotton-plant  it  found  and  then  die.  It  only  lives  as  a  seed-bearer.— [James 
C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

The  moth  has  doubtless  been  found  alive  and  doing  well  as  late  as  May,  though  I  do 
not  speak  from  my  own  experience.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 


456  EEPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

TEXAS. 

Have  never  seen  them  in  spring  alive.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

I  do  not  believe  they  are  ever  seen  in  spring. — [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Never  saw  one  in  spring. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Not  until  its  appearance  in  midsummer  or  fall. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Never  saw  or  heard  of  any. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Have  never  observed  ic  before  June. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

They  have  been  seen  here  all  this  winter. — [Stephen  Har.jert,  Colorado. 

During  the  entire  spring  the  moth  may  be  seen. — [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

I  have  never  seen  one  alter  severe  winter  set  in. — [  J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


QUESTIOX  6. — Are  any  birds,  quadrupeds,  or  reptiles  knotvn  to  attacJc  the  insect  in  your 

locality  f 

ALABAMA. 

Domestic  fowls  and  the  poor  dofjs  of  the  freedmen  eat  them  voraciously.  It  is  to  be 
hoped  the  government  will  not  resort  to  the  latter  for  their  destruction.  Give  us  the 
worms  rather.  Have  never  seen  birds  of  any  kind  eating  them,  though  am  not  pro- 
pared  to  say  they  do  not. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

Birds,  chickens,  turkeys,  and  hogs. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

The  leather  winged  bat  feeds  on  the  moth  or  fly.  Hogs,  turkeys,  and  chickens  feed 
on  the  worm  and  chrysalis,  and  I  presume  all  insectivorous  birds  also  do.  Poultry 
near  houses  thin  them  out  greatly.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

All  insectivorous  birds.  Hogs  root  for  and  feed  on  the  chrysalis.— [Knox,  Minge, 
and  Evans,  Hale. 

Domestic  fowls,  dogs,  and  some  birds,  especially  the  bee-martin. — f  C.  M.  Howard, 
Autauga. 

The  wild  turkey  has  been  known  to  feed  upon  them  in  the  field  near  the  swamps  ; 
also  the  hog — when  they  leave  the  field  and  get  out  so  that  the  hogs  can  have  access 
to  them — will  feed  upon  them. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

Poultry  will  pick  the  worms  from  the  stalks;  at  least  that  is  my  observation. — [J. 
W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

All  insectivorous  birds,  chickens,  and  turkeys,  and  hogs. — [J.  R.  Rogers,  Bollock. 

Birds,  as  in  the  case  of  other  insects. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

I  have  seen  birds,  domestic  fowls,  and  pigs  eating  them. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

Birds.— [J.  H.  Smith,  J.  F.  Calhoun,  Dallas. 

Nothing  except  hogs.  They  will  eat  all  they  can  get,  and  if  allowed  to  remain  in 
the  cotton-tield  will  almost  entirely  destroy  the  plant  in  their  efforts  to  get  the 
•worms. — [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

All  domestic  fowls  that  are  carnivorous  eat  the  worm.  All  carnivorous  birds  eat 
them.  The  wild  turkey  is  particularly  fond  of  them.  Hogs  eat  them  greedily. — [J. 
N.  Gilmore,  Suinter. 

Nearly  all  birds  and  hogs.  Cotton  planted  near  farm-houses  has  been  greatly  pro- 
tected by  the  fowls  eating  them. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

Yes;  all  insectivorous  birds  attack  the  worm. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

Birds,  chickens,  turkeys,  all  feed  on  the  worms.  Hogs  will  feed  and  fatten  on  them. — 
[R.  8.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

All  insectivorous  birds  feed  on  the  moth,  chrysalis,  and  worm  ;  this  includes  domes- 
tic fowls  of  all  kinds,  except  pigeons.  Cats,  dogs,  and  hogs  greedily  eat  the  worms 
and  chrysalis.  Many  insects  feed  on  them  ;  among  them  a  sprightly  black  beetle, 
either  to  deposit  eggs  in  the  shell  of  the  chrysalis' or  to  suck  out  the  juices,  destroys 
thousands. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

When  hogs  can  get  to  them  they  destroy  them  with  great  avidity.  Chickens,  tur- 
keys, and  almost  all  kinds  of  fowls  are  very  eager  after  them  in  this  locality.  I  am 
not  sure  that  the  smaller  birds  feed  upon  them,  but  I  think  they  do.— [  J.  S.  Hausber- 
ger,  Bibb. 

Yes. — [  J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

I  know  that  poultry  does,  particularly  turkeys. — [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

Birds. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

A  great  many  birds  and  poultry.— [J.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Swine,  chickens,  turkeys,  geese,  and  ducks. — [J.C.Matthews,  Dale. 

The  impression  is  that  almost  all  birds  will  feed  upon  the  worms.  Immediately  around 
the  cabins  where  there  are  poultry  and  turkeys  the  cotton  will  not  be  destroyed. — [H. 
A.  Stolen werck,  Perry. 

Domestic  fowls  and  hogs. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

Domestic  fowls,  birds,  dogs,  hogs,  and  coons  eat  them. — [R.  B.  Dunlap,  Greene. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAE.  '     457 

All  insectivorous  birds  prey  more  or  less  upon  the  worm.  No  quadrupeds  or  rep- 
tiles to  my  knowledge. — [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

There  are  various  fowls  and  birds  (no  quadrupeds  or  reptiles  known  to  me)  which 
feed  upon  the  caterpillar.  Turkey  seat  them  greedily,  and  a  cotton-field  near  a  dwell- 
ing has  been  preserved  by  the  turkeys.  Chickens  also  eat  them,  but  their  height  pre- 
vents them  from  destroying  them  as  effectually  as  the  turkeys.  Blackbirds,  bee-mar- 
tins, and  other  small  birds  feed  on  them. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

All  birds  that  would  attack  the  moth,  hogs,  and  dogs  eat  the  worms.  Ants  kill  them 
if  they  find  them  oil  the  ground.  No  birds  seem  to  prey  on  the  worm. — [H.  Hawkins, 
Barbour. 

All  the  birds  feed  upon  the  moths,  and  barn-yard  fowls,  even  the  geese,  eat  the  worms 
with  great  gusto.  And  in  this  connection,  it  occurs  to  us  that  henneries  might,  be  built 
at  proper  distances  and  made  a  paying  institution,  for  we  have  noticed  that  all  around, 
the  barn-yard  the  cotton  is  saved  from  the  worm,  continues  to  grow,  and  develops  a 
full  crop  for  several  acres,  or  as  far  out  as  the  hens  feed,  while  the  balance  is  completely 
riddled,  and  the  loss  oftentimes  one-half  of  the  crop.  This  proposition  would  be  laughed 
at  if  named  here,  while  the  planters  pay  $1  25  per  acre  for  Paris  green,  and  if  the  sea- 
son be  rainy  the  poison  fails  and  the  result  is  a  great  loss. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Mont- 
gomery. 

Mr.  Donovan  is  always  able  to  keep  the  worms  in  check  by  the  following  simple  and 
cheap  method:  he  drives  his  large  flock  of  turke.vs  into  the  field,  and  if  the  plants  are 
too  high,  a  boy  brings  the  worms  down  by  knocking  at  the  plants  with  a  stick.  This 
is  repeated  every  day,  and  this  remedy  has  proved  so  far  invariably  a  success.  Of 
course  it  can  only  be  applied  in  small  fields  which  are  near  the  house  and  when  the 
cotton-plants  are  not  of  large  size.  According  to  Mr.  Donovan,  the  chickens  are  very 
fond,  too,  of  the  cotton-worms,  but  of  course  cannot  reach  as  high  as  the  turkeys.  Of 
other  birds  feeding  upon  the  cotton- worms,  Mr.  Donovan  mentioned  the  "  yellow-jack- 
ets," which  ho  often  observed  in  his  cotton-field  ;  and  he  sometimes  saw  them  pulling 
the  chrysalides  of  Aletia  from  their  webs  and  eating  the  contents. — [E.  A.  Schwarz, 
Eufaula. 

ARKANSAS. 

Mocking-birds,  bluebirds,  and  yellow-billed  cuckoo.— [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 
Do  not  know  of  any  bird,  quadruped,  or  reptile  that  ea,ts  the  worms. — [E.  T.  Dale, 
Miller. 
I  do  not  know  of  any.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

Blackbirds,  swine,  and  sunshine. — [J.  M.  McGehee,  Santa  Rosa. 
Birds  and  fowls.— [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 

Birds,  chickens,  turkeys,  and  geese  eat  them. — [F.  M.  Meekin,  Alachua. 
The  loggerhead  and  bee- martin. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

The  hog  madly  devours  them  when  permitted  in  the  cotton-fields.  Also  the  common 
fowls.  Chickens  are  very  destructive  to  them,  especially  the  guinea  chicken,  which 
travels  further  from  the  dwelling  than  the  common  fowl. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

The  partridges  prey  upon  them,  and  hogs  turned  into  the  field  when  they  are  numer- 
ous have  been  known  to  eat  them.— [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

I  know  of  none. — [A.  J.  Cheeves,  Macon. 

Turkeys,  blackbirds,  and  chickens.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

Birds,  fowls,  and  hogs.— [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

The  birds  destroy  some,  but  not  in  appreciable  numbers. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

LOUISIANA. 

All  birds,  particularly  the  crow-blackbirds.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

Many  kinds  of  fowls  and  birds  prey  upon  the  worms,  after  they  have  attained  some 
size,  and  perhaps  even  prey  upon  the  eggs  before  they  are  hatched.  When  the  worms 
are  numerous  the  fowls  and  birds  gather  to  the  cotton-fields,  and  remain  there  daily 
feeding  on  them.  I  know  of  no  animals  who  do  this,  except  of  the  feathered  kind. — 
[D.  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

The  common  fowls  will  sometimes  eat  them.— [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

A  great  many  sparrows  and  other  small  birds  appear  about  the  same  time,  and  before 
and  after,  but  whether  to  devour  them  or  other  insects  I  know  not.  I  do  not  believe 
anything  destroys  them  to  any  great  extent. — [K.  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

Having  occasion  to  move  my  fowls  during  the  summer  to  a  location  near  the  cotton- 
field,  my  chickens  took  to  the  field  and  ate  so  many  worms  that  they  did  not  care  for 
other  kind  of  food,  and  seemed  to  do  well  on  them.  Turkeys  and  guinea-fowls  are 
very  fond  of  them.— [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 


458  EEPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

Black  and  bine  birds,  and  some  species  of  the  sparrow  and  a  green  lizard,  are  often 
found  on  the  plant,  apparently  in  quest  of  them. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

Ducks,  geese,  chickens,  most  small  birds,  and  especially  turkeys,  wild  and  tame. — 
[C.  Welch,  Covington. 

I  have  seen  birds  eating  the  worms,  not  with  much  of  a  relish  as  to  lead  me  to  sup- 
pose they  intended  to  destroy  them. — [John  C.  Russel,  Madison. 

All  kinds  of  birds,  particularly  the  summer  sparrow,  also  turkeys  and  chickens. — 
[I.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

It  is  alleged  by  the  most  reliable  observers  that  a  number  do  so.  Being  near-sighted 
I  cannot  swear  to  seeing  anything  of  the  kind. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Madison. 

I  have  not  observed  any  wild  bird  feeding  on  the  worms.  I  have  noticed  small  pigs 
and  some  large  hogs  feeding  on  them ;  and  our  domestic  turkeys  are  the  greatest  ene- 
mies of  that  worm. —  [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

The  blue-bird,  mocking-bird,  and  martin  feed  on  them,  the  martin  on  the  moth,  the 
others  on  both  moth  and  worm.  Chickens  and  turkeys  also  feed  on  them.  They  both 
soon  learn  to  lind  the  chrysalis.  I  have  often  seen  chickens  jumping  up  for  them.  A 
few  years  ago  I  called  to  see  a  friend  in  an  adjoining  county  who  had  a  large  planta- 
tion, and  found  his  cotton  stripped  of  its  leaves,  except  a  ten-acre  field  near  his  house. 
On  inquiry  he  told  me  that  his  turkeys  had  kept  tho  worms  from  injuring  that  field. 
It  was  then  the  time  of  the  third  crop  of  worms. — [W.  Spillman.  Clark. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

None. — [J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

Birds  will  sometimes  feed  on  them.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

None. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

Black-birds  and  turkeys  eat  them.— [P.  S.  Felder,  Orangeburgh. 

Cotton-fields  in  the  vicinity  of  such  swamps  where  wild  turkeys  are  found,  suffer  less 
damage  from  caterpillars,  because  the  turkeys  will  destroy  them.  There  ia  no  bird  ex- 
cept this  that  seems  to  eat  them ;  this  may  be  because  there  is  so  much  else  they  prefer 
at  this  time  of  the  year. — [Jamas  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

The  lady-bird  and  bee-martin  doubtless  destroy  a  great  many  of  the  moths,  and  it  is 
asserted  that  a  small  sap-sucker  bird  destroys  the  larva  and  eggs. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

It  is  said  that  a  little  gray  bird  occasionally  preys  upon  the  insect. — [A.  Schroeter, 
Burnet. 

Hogs  are  said  to  feed  on  them  when  hungry,  but  I  know  of  no  bird  or  fowl  that  feeds 
on  them.  I  have  chickens,  guineas,  and  turkeys,  running  in  tho  field  where  1  ho  worms 
were  numerous,  but  have  nesrer  seen  them  feeding  on  them. — [ J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Yes;  birds,  ants,  and  pigs. — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

Mocking-birds. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

The  insects  are  destroyed,  more  or  less,  by  the  little  martin  or  swallow.— [O.  H.  P. 
Garrett,  Washington. 

Occasionally  turkeys  feed  on  them,  but  to  no  great,  degree. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Turkeys,  chickens,  and  some  small  birds.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

None  are  known. — [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

English  sparrows  and  swine.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

There  are  no  natural  enemies  to  the  cotton- worm  that  will  benefit  the  farmer. — [W. 
T.  Hill,  Walker. 

There  are  numerous  enemies  of  the  insect ;  all  the  small  birds  here  destroy  the  same. 
The  land  turtles,  toads,  lizards, eat;  chickens,  turkeys,  dncks,  partridges,  prairie  chick- 
ens destroy  immense  numbers. — [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

There  are  many  birds  and  insects  that  eat  the  worms,  but  none  enough  to  stop  their 
destruction. — [S.  Harberr,,  Colorado. 

I  saved  a  small  lot  of  cotton  near  the  residence  by  feeding  the  turkeys  in  it,  and  they 
destroyed  the  worms  so  as  to  save  the  cotton  from  much  injury.  In  184(5  and  1847, 
after  stripping  the  cotton  of  leaves  and  small  bolls,  the  worms  crawled  by  millions 
through  the  fence  in  the  road,  and  my  hogs  promenaded  the  road  eating  them. — [C. 
B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Birds  and  domestic  fowls  are  said  to  feed  upon  them  to  a  limited  extent,  but  not  to 
diminish  their  number  apparently,  and  soon  tire  of  them. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

A  small  species  of  brown  or  black  bird  prey  upon  the  worms  more  or  less,  but  they 
soon  become  so  numerous  that  the  birds  cannot  affect  them.  Chickens,  turkeys,  and 
hogs  are  fond  of  the  worm. — [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 


APPENDIX    II ANSWERS   TO    CIRCULAR.  459 

QUESTION  6  a. — Are  any  predaceous  insects  or  parasites  known  to  prey  upon  it,  either  in 
the  egg,  larva,  or  chrysalis  state  f 

ALABAMA. 

There  is  a  parasite  that  deposits  a  grub  that  destroys  it  in  the  chrysalis  state.  This 
fact,  was  found  out  by  bottling  a  chrysalis,  which  hatched  a  parasite  resembling  a  fly 
somewhat  smaller  than  a  house-fly. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

Wo  know  of  none. — [H.  A.  Stoleuwerck,  Perry. 

I  think  not.— [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

The  common  little  red  ant  is  the  only  insect  known  to  attack  it. — [H.  C.  Brown, 
Wilcox. 

Ants. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

It  is  believed  that  the  common  black  ants  prey  upon  the  egg.  I  know  of  none  inter- 
fering with  the  worm  or  chrysalis. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

I  know  of  none. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

I  know  of  no  insect  that  preys  upon  it. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

Ants  are  numerous  at  times,  and  seem  to  feed  ou  them. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

I  haye  seen  the  ants  at  work  ou  the  egg  and  larva. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

I  do  not  think  that  the  eggs  are  fed  upon. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

Yes ;  the  ichneumon  fly  in  the  chrysalis  state  and  ants  in  the  eggs  and  larva. — [ J. 
A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

But  the  eggs  are  so  much  more  numerous  than  the  ants  that  the  eggs  are  not 
missed. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

Carabid  beetles,  more  especially  the  Cicindelidae,  destroy  both  eggs  and  larva. — [E. 
T.  Dale,  Miller. 

There  are  none.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

The  small  red  ant. — [Nor borne  Young,  Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

A  large,  black  wasp  will  eat  the  larva  and  worm.  And  there  is  an  insect  com- 
monly called  the  musquito-hawk  (I  do  not  know  its  technical  name)  ;  it  is  long-bod- 
ied, has  two  sets  of  membranous  wings,  a  large  head,  and  a  long  continuation  of  the 
abdominal  portion  of  the  body  ;  there  are  many  sizes  and  colors  ;  they  live  on  insects 
and  on  each  other.  I  have  frequently  seen  them  catch  the  moth  of  the  cotton  cater- 
pillar. These  musquito-hawks  are  very  numerous  here,  of  many  varieties,  varying  in 
size  from  tin  inch  to  2-J  or  3  inches  in  length  of  body,  and  I  think  it  does  more  to  pro- 
vent  the  development  of  the  cotton  caterpillar  than  all  the  rest  of  its  enemies. — [F. 
M.  Meekin,  Alachna. 

We  only  know  through  the  entomologist  that  there  is  an  ichneumon-fly  that  lays  its 
eggs  in  the  caterpillar. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

The  ant  preys  upon  the  egg  and  worm  to  a  certain  extent. — [William  A.  Harris, 
Worth. 

None,  that  I  ever  heard  of. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

None,  to  effect  its  progress. — [Timothy  Fussel,  Coffee. 

One  species  of  the  ichneumon. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

Enemies,  the  most  numerous  of  which  were  pupae  of  Pimpla  conquisitor.  There  were 
also  a  number  of  Tachina  larva  noticed. — [A.  R.  Grote. 

LOUISIANA. 

Never  saw  any. — [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

Many  kinds  of  insects  prey  upon  the  army  worm  while  in  the  shape  of  eggs,  and 
afterward  while  in  the  form  of  worms.  Ants  of  many  kinds  are  found  preying  on  them 
in  good  weather,  but  not  in  bad,  and  this  is  one  reason  given  why  the  worm  increases 
so  much  faster  in  rainy,  wet  weather  than  in  dry  and  fair  weather.  The  cotton-fields 
have  many  enemies  of  the  worm  out  in  fair  weather  devouring  eggs  and  worms,  but 
rain  and  wet  drive  these  enemies  back  to  their  retreats,  and  then  the  worm  breeds 
without  let  or  hinderance.— [D.  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

I  know  of  nothing  that  preys  upon  it  in  any  form. — [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feli- 
ciana. 

The  chinch-bug  is  known  to  be  one  of  its  enemies,  but  of  late  years  the  ant  has 
proved  to  be  the  greatest  enemy,  both  to  the  egg  and  larva.  I  entertain  the  belief 
that  they  will  ultimately  destroy  the  worm  if  it  should  prove  to  be  indigenous  rather 
than  of  foreign  origin. — [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Yes ;  have  often  found  the  worm  with  its  juices  sucked  out ;  have  seen  a  small  louse 
at  work  on  adead  worm  ;  also  am  satisfied  there  tear  v-«or.ttbat<l«poeitsit*  vyy  e'-^~r 


460  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

in  the  worm  before  he  webs  up  in  the  chrysalis  state  :  the  larva  hatches  and  feeds  upon 
it.— [  J.  W.  Bnrch,  Jefferson. 

None  known.— [John  C.  Russel,  Madison. 

I  have  seen  a  green  chinch  sucking  the  juices  of  the  cotton- worm  ;  cannot  say  that 
the  worm  was  injured  by  the  act. — [J.  Culbertson,  Rankin. 

I  know  of  none. — [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

In  1870  I  gathered  180  chrysalides  ou  the  16th  of  November.  I  put  them  np,  some  in 
earth  and  some  in  cotton-seed ;  the  following  February  the  ichneumon  flies  commenced 
coming  out  of  them  instead  of  the  caterpillar  flies.  1  failed  to  get  a  caterpillar  fly  out 
of  the  lot.  This  year  I  gathered  100  on  the  1st  of  November  and  put  them  up  as  they 
were  webbed  up  in  the  leaves ;  ten  days  after  I  found  all  except  four  destroyed  by 
very  small  insects. — [I.  G.  G.  Garrett,  Claiborne. 

There  is  an  insect,  the  name  of  which  I  cannot  give,  that  pierces  with  its  back  into 
the  worm  and  the  worm  expires  ;  but  this  is  of  no  consequence,  the  number  of  worms 
being  billions  and  the  bugs  few  comparatively. — [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

Many  are  said  to  do  so,  of  which  I  cannot  testify,  but  for  tne  following  I  can  :  1. 
Soldier-bugs  pierce  the  caterpillars,  suck  their  juices,  and  then  destroy  them.  (See 
illustration  plate  Rural  Carolinian,  August,  1870,  p.  6S3).  The  soldier-bug  presents 
his  lance,  moves  deliberately  and  steadily  along  till  the  caterpillar  is  impaled.  Then 
come  smaller  soldier-bugs,  sometimes  quite  a  number,  and  join  in  the  feast.  2.  Cer- 
tain ichneumon-flies  deposit  their  eggs  in  them,  when  the  chrysalis  turns  out  the  ich- 
neumon-fly instead  of  the  Aletia. 

3.  Another  soft,  small  parasite  fosters  on  the  chrysalis.  There  is  another  fly  which 
is  probably  an  enemy  of  the  Aletia,  but  too  sly  to  be  caught.  The  boll-worm  and 
moth  I  do  not  give,  nor  a  species  of  social  caterpillar  which  I  have  not  seen  on  the 
cotton-plant  for  many  years,  nor  several  spiders  which  infest  it,  nor  the  cut-worms, 
&c.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Madison. 

I  have  never  seen  the  worm  attacked  by  any  other  insect  than  the  grass- worm,  and 
then  only  when  brought  in  contact.  I  find  the  lady-bird  and  ichneumon  fly  and  other 
insects  frequenting  the  plant  among  the  worms. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

In  my  report  ou  the  cotton-infesting  insects  made  last  autumn,  in  the  portion  in 
which  mention  is  made  of  insect  enemies  of  the  Aletia,  one  is  referred  to  and  obscurely 
figured  on  paper.  I  find  that  my  son  had  drawn  it  separately  and  distinctly,  and  it 
proved  to  be  a  Coccinella  or  Hippodama.  We  are  both  of  the  opinion  it  is  the  larva  of 
Coccinella  novemnotata,  so  abundant  on  the  cottou-plaut. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 


NORTH   CAROLINA. 


None. — [J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 
No.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 


SOUTH   CAROLINA. 


None.— [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

The  common  aut  maintains  an  equilibrium  when  it  is  not  too  wet.  The  ant  will 
destroy  the  eggs  unless  the  rainy  weather  keeps  it  in  its  retreat.  This  is  the  reason 
that  a  dry  season  is  never  a  caterpillar  one. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

The  family,  in  its  different  phases,  are  preyed  upon  by  ants,  the  ichneumon,  the  Mc- 
gacephala  Carolina,  and  perhaps  several  other  insects.  Their  destruction  by  enemies 
must  be  greater  than  is  at  present  supposed.  This  is  one  field  in  which  the  labor  of 
entomologists  might  be  profitably  employed.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

The  little  black  ant  will  devour  the  eggs,  as  they  do  the  lice  that  sometimes  get  on 
the  plant  while  young.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardiu. 

Some  species  of  the  ant  will  prey  upon  the  egg. — [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

There  are  several  species  of  beetle  that  prey  on  th.m,  but  as  they  live  on  the 
ground  and  the  cotton-worm  on  the  plant,  they  get  but  few.  The  devil's  coach-horse, 
llcduvim  novenarius,  the  ichneumon-fly,  and  a  few  other  insects  prey  on  the  worm,  but 
not  to  any  perceptible  diminution  of  them. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

None  are  known.— [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

Ants.— [?.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

I  believe  there  is  a  parasite  that  sometimes  attacks  the  larva ;  this  I  infer  from  find- 
ing the  larva  nearly  dead,  dead,  and  decaying.  I  gave  it  but  little  attention  at  the 
time,  for  1  was  thoroughly  disheartened  by  their  ravages. — [  J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Ants  ;  no  parasites  observed. — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

Ants  prey  upon  the  egg,  larva,  and  chrysalis.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

Nothing  but  the  small  ant. — [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

In  dry  weather  the  little  ants  that  are  to  be  found  everywhere  prey  upon  them ; 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAE.  461 

when  they  get  knocked  off  on  the  ground  and  the  sun  drives  them  up  the  stalk  for 
protection,  they  attack  the  chrysalides,  &c.— [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

None  that  I  have  any  knowledge  of. — [ J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

Numberless  insects  destroy  it,  viz,  wasps,  lady-bugs,  (destroy  the  egg),  devil's  horse 
or  alligator  fly,  spiders,  the  rear  or  devil's  horses,  (Mantidae),  and  several  varieties  of 
field  bugs  are  its  most  active  enemies  ;  also  several  varieties  of  metallic-greeii  large 
bugs,  sometimes  called  Spanish  flies  and  ants.— [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 


QUESTION  7.— Wat  has  teen  tJie  result  of  the  efforts  to  allure  and  destroy  the  moths,  and 
what  methods  have  proved  most  satisfactory  f  Give  your  estimate  of  the  relative  value  for 
this  purpose  of  poisoned  sugar,  molasses,  and  vinegar,  and  fires. 

ALABAMA. 

All  the  vegetable  poisons,  as  china,  Jerusalem  oak,  Jamestown  weed,  &c.,  have  been 
tried  and  failed.  Lamps  and  pine-knot  fires  were  only  partially  successful.  No  gins 
or  traps  have  been  used  that  we  know  of.  In  fact,  nothing  has  been  successfully  used 
but  Paris  green  (Royal's  patent).  The  Texas  "  worm  destroyer "  was  successful  at 
first ;  last  year  it  failed,  and  the  planters  who  used  it  here  think  it  has  been  counter- 
feited or  in  some  way  deteriorated.  The  fact  we  think  is  that  they  did  not  make  it 
strong  enough.  Great  care  must  be  observed  not  to  put  too  much  of  either  this  or 
Paris  green  on  the  cotton,  for  they  all  contain  arsenic,  which  will  certainly  parch  up 
the  leaves  and  injure  the  cotton.  We  have  no  experience  in  molasses,  vinegar,  and 
fires  ;  they  are  all  too  slow  for  this  emergency. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

I  have  setn  fires  used  at  night  and  drugs  used'to  poison,  but  don't  believe  it  ever 
did  any  good,  for  the  worms  finally  eat  up  all  the  cotton. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

Efforts  have  been  made  to  allure  and  destroy  the  moths  years  ago  by  lights  and 
poisoned  sugar,  and  molasses  and  vinegar.  While  they  destroyed  large  quantities  of 
the  insects,  it  did  not  seem  to  affect  the  numbers  of  worms  to  any  extent,  and  do  not 
consider  that  means  of  any  practical  value. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

The  Paris  green  is  the  only  remedy  tried  in  this  locality  for  the  destruction  of  the 
worms,  and  that  with  but  little  success. — [J.  S.  Hausberger,  Bibb. 

Nothing  yet  satisfactory. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

The  results  of  the  efforts  to  allure  and  destroy  the  moths  have  generally  proved  un- 
satisfactory ;  poisoned  molasses  is  supposed  to  be  the  best  method. — [  J.  A.  Callaway, 
Montgomery. 

Some  years  ago  the  planters  (many  of  them)  used  tin  plates  made  for  the  purpose, 
on  which  were  placed  vinegar  sweetened  with  sugar  or  molas-es.  Fires  were  also 
made  on  stands  in  the  field  to  attract  the  fly.  But  as  they  have  been  generally  aban- 
doned, I  suppose  the  results  were  not  satisfactory. — [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

All  the  suggestions  published  in  newspapers  have  been  tried  by  the  farmers  of  this 
county  by  building  fires  at  night  and  then  going  with  brush  in  hand  through  the  cot- 
ton, also  stake  fires  with  pans  of  water;  all  failed  to  do  any  perceptible  good. — [P. 
D.  Bowles,  Couecuh. 

The  ravages  of  cotton  insects  in  this  country  have  been  considerable,  but  no  exper- 
iments have  been  made  to  check  or  destroy  them.— [  J.  W.  Elliott,  Marshall. 

Efforts  made  to  destroy  moths  have  all  proved  failures  :  none  of  them  worth  a  cent. — 
[M  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

There  have  been  several  experiments  made  with  lighted  torches,  but  nothing  yet 
discovered  that  proved  a  success. — [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

But  little  has  been  accomplished;  much  money  has  been  wasted  in  efforts  to  poison 
them.— [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

The  moth  will  be  attracted  by  sugar  and  molasses.  Fires  are  more  attractive  and 
destructive.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

I  have  no  experience  ;  have  made  no  efforts  to  allure  or  destroy  except  when  they 
first  appear,  which  is  generally  in  a  small  space.  What  I  have  done,  then,  was  simply 
to  get  a  number  of  hands  and  pick  them  off  and  kill  them,  and  I  am  led  to  believe  if 
there  were  no  neighboring  fields  to  supply  the  crop  of  flies  adjacent  they  can  thus  be 
set  back  one  generation  or  be,  say  six  weeks,  later  in  their  destruction.  All  cannot 
thus  be  killed,  of  course.— [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Have  tried  fire  and  sulphur  without  good  effect. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

Lights  at  night  and  sweetened  baits  have  been  used,  but  with  such  unsatisfactory 
results  as  to  be  abandoned. — [Charles  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

None. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

Honey,  sugar,  sirups,  and  sorghum  sirup  are  the  sweets  used.  Fires  at  night  have 
been  resorted  to  for  the  destruction  of  the  moths.  Coal-oil  has  been  experimented 
with.  The  difficulties  met  with  in  using  it  are :  1st.  Want  of  a  suitable  means  of 
throwing  the  mixture  of  water  and  oil  upon  the  plants ;  2d.  The  danger  of  killing  the 


462  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

plant  when  the  proportion  of  coal-oil  is  too  great ;  3d.  The  mixing  of  the  oil  and 
•water.— [E.  A.  Smith,  Tuscaloosa. 

No  efforts  have  been  made  to  destroy  the  moth.  Fires  will  attract  them. — [H.  A. 
Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

I  have  known  little  success  to  follow  the  efforts  to  destroy  the  moths. — [D.  Lee, 
Lowndes. 

Paris  green  was  used  some  years  past  for  the  cotton-worm.— [George  W.  Thagard, 
Crenshaw. 

Every  effort  to  destroy  the  moth  by  allurement  or  traps  are  consummate  failures.  I 
have  experimented  in  trying  to  decoy,  and  have  known  others  to  try  fires,  traps,  and 
lamps  at  night,  and  every  effort  was  worthless  and  a  loss  of  time.  Vinegar,  molasses, 
&c.,  on  plates,  or  otherwise,  worth  nothing. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

No  method  has  been  even  hopeful  for  decoying  the  moth.  If  a  concerted  effort  could 
be  made  with  lights,  sweetened  water,  and  poison,  success  is  possible,  yet  where  one 
plantation  is  guarded  and  another  not,  the  moths  from  the  unguarded  field  will  be  in 
sufficient  numbers  to  bring  destruction  in  a  few  days. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

The  different  methods  have  been  tried  to  destroy  the  moth,  but  all  have  failed. — [ J. 
N.  Gilmore,  Snmter. 

Fires  or  lights  at  night  attract  them.— [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

But  little  value  is  attached  to  this  method  of  destruction.  It  has  only  been  tried  on 
a  limited  scale.  Poisons,  torches,  &c.,  have  been  used  with  but  little  success.— [R.  W. 
Russell,  Lowndes. 

All  methods  of  alluring  the  moth  by  fires  or  sweetened  substances  have  proved 
futile.  Many  are  indeed  destroyed,  but  sufficient  remain  to  do  their  destructive 
work. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

As  everywhere  in  Alabama  and  Mississippi,  nothing  is  done  at  present  for  the  de- 
struction of  Alctia.  It  is  very  troublesome  to  find  a  contrivance  which  has  been  in 
use  for  some  years. — [E.  A.  Schwarz,  Barbour. 

I  spent  one  day  and  a  half  in  hunting  up  a  lantern  which  was  used  here  three  or 
four  years  ago.  The  manufacturer  of  this  lantern,  which  I  sent  to  the  department 

Eer  express,  sold,  in  1873  or  '74,  K)0  at  75  cents  apiece.  The  pan  at  the  bottom  of  this 
imp  is  filled  with  molasses.  There  is,  of  course,  a  chimney  belonging  to  it,  which 
the  express  company  refused  to  send  on  with  the  lantern.  However,  this  chimney  is 
not  peculiar.  From  information  received  from  several  farmers,  I  learned  that  these 
lanterns  were  very  effective  and  were  discarded,  partly  owing  to  the  fact  that  the 
worms  have  not  been  destructive  in  the  past  few  years,  and  partly  because  only  a  few 
of  the  planters  used  them.  The  Rev.  C.  R.  Dudley,  of  Canton,  Miss.,  has  invented  and 
patented,  in  1872  or  '73,  a  lantern  for  the  destruction  of  Alclia,  and  about  50  of  his 
lanterns  were  sold  in  Canton  at  about  $1  apiece.  I  did  not  succeed  in  getting  one  of 
these  lanterns,  and  the  manufacturer  of  them,  Mr.  Snyder,  in  Canton,  was  uuable  to 
give  me  a. description.  Mr.  Dudley  has  taken  back  all  lanterns  not  sold,  and  has  re- 
moved to  Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  where  letters  will  reach  him  care  of  Dr.  Rob.  Faris.  These 
lanterns  consisted  of  a  kerosene  lamp  with  a  parabolic  refractor,  and  a  sticky  sub- 
stance was  smeared  on  a  pan  surrounding  the  lamp. — [E.  A.  Schwarz,  Barbour. 

ARKANSAS. 

There  have  been  no  remedies  used  to  destroy  it  in  this  county,  except  a  patent  some 
one  made  in  the  shape  of  a  funnel  with  a  light  placed  in  it.  I  think  fires  would  be 
preferable  to  anything  else,  as  the  moth  is  attracted  by  light,  and  would  be  con- 
sumed.—[T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

No  experiments. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

Some  experiments  made  with  fires  show  that  the  fires,  while  they  attract  the  moths, 
destroy  but  few,  and  fields  in  which  fires  have  been  kept  have  suffered  more  than  those 
adjacent  in  which  there  were  no  fires.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

Little  or  no  effort  has  been  made.  My  opinion  is  that  something  could  be  done  with 
poisoned  molasses  and  fires  or  lamps.  A  few  nights  ago  I  placed  a  cup  3  inches  in 
diameter  with  a  little  molasses  in  it  at  a  distance  from  lights  and  cotton-plants,  and 
found  6  moths  in  it  the  next  morning,  all  of  them  cotton  caterpillar  moths.  A  year 
or  two  ago  I  divided  an  overripe  watermelon  and  placed  it  in  a  similar  position,  and 
by  eight  o'clock  at  night  there  were  50  or  75  moths  feeding  on  it.  Watermelons  could 
be  easily  grown  with  cotton  and  made  to  serve  a  good  purpose. — [John  Bradford, 
Leon. 

No  remedies  ever  tried  in  this  county. — [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 

Have  no  experience  in  destroying  moths ;  think  that  fires  or  rather  torches  at  night, 
established  plentifully  over  the  field,  would  be  most  destructive,  as  the  moth  seeks  the 
torch.  I  further  believe  that  the  field-hands  ought  to  be  instructed  to  watch  or  ob- 
serve the  plant  closely  when  hoeing,  and  destroy  all  the  worms  found.  Intelligent 
and  faithful  hands  might  prevent  the  destructive  increase  by  this  timely  preven- 
tion.—[F.  M.  Meekin,  Alachua. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  463 


Many  futile  and  unsuccessful  efforts  have  been  made,  such  as  poisoning  and  build- 
ing, but  all  proved  to  be  a  failure. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

Have  never  tried  any  remedies  to  destroy  them.  I  think  fires  at  night  would  destroy 
the  moth.— [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

I  do  not  believe  any  of  the  methods  of  destruction  mentioned  would  do  any  good. — 
[William  Jones,  Clarke. 

They  seldom  appear  in  our  neighborhood  in  such  numbers  as  to  do  much  damage,  but 
when  they  do  come  it  seems  as  if  any  attempt  to  destroy  them  could  not  but  be  futile ; 
certainly  nothing  has  yet  been  done  that  is  at  all  adequate. — [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macon. 

We  have  tried  Paris  green  and  arsenic  alone,  with  some  success. — [William  A.  Harris, 
Worth. 

The  most  satisfactory  effort  is  the  night-lamp.  Paris  green  does  its  work  well,  but 
it  is  dangerous.  Fires  built  all  over  the  field  at  night  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  best  way 
to  destroy  them. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

None  has  ever  been  used  in  this  county. — [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

There  has  been  little  attention  paid  to  the  destruction  of  this  moth,  because  we  do 
not  consider  them  as  hurtful  as  in  other  sections. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

LOUISIANA. 

I  know  of  nothing  but  Paris  green  being  used  of  late  years.  Lamps,  fires,  and  some 
substance  beneath  the  fire  have  been  used,  but  abandoned,  as  it  generally  turned  out 
that  enough  moths  escaped  after  being  attracted  by  the  fire  to  entirely  destroy  the 
cotton  where  the  fire  was  used.  It  might  be  advantageous  to  concentrate  by  this 
means  the  worms  on  certain  portions  of  the  cotton,  and  flhen  destroy  them  by  Paris 
green  at.  much  less  cost.  Think  they  are  attracted  more  by  the  light  as  all  other  moths 
are. — [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

No  good  has  resulted  from  the  efforts  to  allure  and  destroy  the  moths :  no  actual 
benefit  from  poisoned  sugar,  molasses,  and  vinegar,  and  fires. — [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West 
Feliciana. 

I  have  never  tried  any  plan  to  destroy  the  moths,  but  have  heard  of  many.  No  plan 
will  avail  unless  it  is  general,  for  the  reason  that  one  planter  who  neglects  to  destroy 
the  moths  on  his  place,  would  cause  enough  to  be  produced  in  his  fields  to  eat  up  the 
whole  neighborhood.  No  doubt  thousands  could  be  destroyed  by  logs  piled  up  and 
fired  in  the  fields  at  night,  or  by  fires  built  on  platforms  of  pine,  or  other  inflammable 
materials,  or  by  large  lamps  or  other  contrivances.  The  moths  are  attracted  great  dis- 
tances at  night  by  lights,  and  many  injurious  ways  might  be  planned  to  attract  and 
destroy  them. — [D.  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

All  efforts  to  destroy  the  moths  have  been  useless. — [John  A.  Marymau,  East  Felici- 
ana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

For  a  number  of  years  nothing  in  my  part  of  the  country  has  been  done  to  destroy 
them.  Some  attempts  were  at  one  time  made,  but  did  not  prove  satisfactory,  and 
have  all  been  abandoned.  Like  every  other  misfortune,  we  have  made  up  our  minds 
to  submit  to  it.— [K.  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

Without  general  concert  of  action,  I  think  individual  effort  would  be  useless. — [C. 
F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

No  efforts  have  been  made  here  to  destroy  them,  except  to  pick  off  and  destroy  the 
worm  and  chrysalis,  all  of  which  proved  futile.— [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

Building  fires  at  night  has  been  practiced  by  some;  the  results  I  am  unable  to  give. 
I  know  of  no  poisoned  sugar,  &c.,  having  been  tried. — [William  T.  Lewis,  Winstou. 

Few  or  no  remedies  have  been  used  in  my  locality.  Some  years  since,  light  wood- 
fires  and  plates  filled  with  molasses  and  vinegar  were  used  with  partial  success.  Lan- 
terns of  several  kinds  have  been  used,  all  with  some  success,  in  destroying  the  moth. — 
[Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

The  people  of  this  county  do  not  dread  the  cotton- worm,  and  but  little  has  been  done 
for  its  prevention  or  destruction. — [J.  Culbertson,  Rankiu. 

I  think  fires,  where  general,  are  most  satisfactory.— [Daniel  Cohen,  Wilkinson. 

Nothing  very  satisfactory. — [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

Small  tires  at  night  destroy  great  numbers;  do  not  know  anything  about  the  molas- 
ses, &c.— [W.  Spillman,  Clarke. 

Every  effort  to  destroy  them  has  been  a  failure.  The  greatest  destruction  of  the 
moth  has  been  accomplished  by  placing  lights  in  the  fields  at  night ;  the  moth  flies 
into  it  and  is  destroyed ;  fires  are  far  the  least  expensive,  and  as  much  better  than 
poison  as  they  are  cheaper. — [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

Perfectly  satisfactory  to  my  mind  when  fully  carried  out.  I  saved  my  crop  in  1874 
by  a  system  of  lanterns,  pans,  coal-tar,  molasses  and  vinegar.  I  used  a  post  six  feet 
high  and  a  sheet-iron  pan,  eighteen  by  twelve,  on  top  of  post,  a  block  of  wood  in  the 
pan  for  the  lantern  to  set  in;  pan  filled  with  molasses  or  coal-tar  :  light  the  lantern 


464  REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

and  you  will  catch  every  moth  on  an  acre.  Molasses  and  vinegar  attracts  better  than 
anything  used  in  conjunction  with  a  bright  lantern  ;  one-half  of  a  star  candle  that 
will  burn  three  hours  is  sufficient,  as  the  inoth  flies  early  after  dark.  Did  not  use  any- 
thing this  year;  yellow  fever  absorbed  everything  here.— [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

The  worms  are  so  few  and  rare  in  this  section  that  no  effort  has  been  made  to  de- 
stroy them.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 
No  remedies  have  ever  been  used  in  this  county. — [J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

I  believe  one  of  these  plans  as  good  as  another,  and  all  of  them  useless. — [James  W. 
Grace,  Colleton. 

We  cannot  give  you  any  information  as  to  remedies  or  methods  of  destruction.  The 
worm  has  never  threatened  us  with  such  damage  as  has  been  experienced  in  more 
southern  localities,  and  nearer  the  coast,  and  have,  therefore,  never  had  to  resort  to 
anything  of  the  kind.  I  have  not  heard  of  any  farmer  in  this  county  who  ever  tried 
any  experiment.  When  one  had  a  flock  of  turkeys  or  many  fowls,  he  would  turn  them 
on  the  cotton  infested  with  the  worm  with  good  results. — [James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

This  is  another  field  in  which  the  entomologist  can,  as  I  believe,  bo  profitably  and 
successfully  employed.  Success  will,  perhaps,  be  achieved  when  the  entomologist 
combines  as  his  assistant  practical  knowledge  so  common  among  planters  and  scientific 
attainments  in  entomology,  or,  rather,  natural  history.  Poisoned  sugar,  as  ordinarily 
used,  is  of  little  value ;  molasses  and  vinegar  are  useless ;  tires,  unless  used  by  all  plant- 
ers, decidedly  hurtful.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

I  know  nothing  of  poisoning,  as  it  has  never  been  tried  in  this  locality.  Fires  have 
been  tried,  but  without  any  effect.  One  man  in  this  neighborhood  tried  lamps  sur- 
rounded by  small  tin  plates,  smeared  with  molasses.  If  he  ever  caught  any  I  never 
heard  of  it.  Many  people  went  to  see  the  result  of  his  experiments,  but  nothing  came 
of  it.  Half  an  hour  after  sunset  the  moth  may  be  seen  flitting  about  among  the  cotton- 
plants,  scarcely  ever  seen  above  the  tops  of  the  plants,  depositing  eggs  on  the  under 
side  of  the  leaves  mostly  ;  if  not  disturbed,  never  appearing  during  the  day. — [  J.  M. 
Glascoe,  Upshur. 

None  have  been  used  except  fires. — [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

So  far  no  remedies  of  any  kind  have  been  applied. — [A.  Schroeter,  Burnet. 

A  field  upon  which  the  worms  had  made  their  appearance  was  promptly  sprinkled 
•with  the  arsenite  of  soda,  prepared  at  Lodi,  New  .Jersey,  and  not  a  worm  was  to  be  found 
and  the  plant  itself  had  sustained  no  perceptible  injury.  It  was  the  only  crop  in  the 
neighborhood  that  was  not  eaten  up. — [William  J.  Jones,  Galveston. 

I  know  of  none  tried. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

I  know  one  man  that  built  large  fires  around  his  field  and  destroyed  a  great  many ; 
this  is  the  only  remedy  tried  within  my  knowledge. — [P.  S.  Watte,  Hardiu. 

Molasses,  with  burning  lamps,  has  proved  most  satisfactory.  Unless  everybody  uses 
this  remedy  it  is  hurtful  to  those  who  do,  as  it  attracts  the  moths  of  the  uuilluminated 
fields.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Poisoned  sugar,  molasses,  and  vinegar,  used  in  day-time,  and  fires  or  lights  placed 
so  that  the  moth  falls  into  a  vessel  of  gummy  matter,  have  been  found  efficacious  for 
their  destruction,  but  has  never  proved  wholly  so,  probably  owing  to  the  fact  that 
they  are  not  used  early  enough  or  not  long  enough. — [S.  B.  Tuckaberry,  Polk. 

Remedies  used  here  have  been  Paris  green  mixed  with  flour,  put  on  by  means  of  a 
sifter  when  the  cotton  is  damp.  Arsenic  dissolved  in  water  is  also  used ;  both  ha,ve 
proved  effectual.  The  arsenic  has  proved  the  most  satisfactory  and  cheapest;  judg- 
ment has  to  be  exercised  or  the  cotton  will  be  killed  with  the  worm. — [O.  H.  P.  Gar- 
rett,  Washington. 

Nothing  attempted  in  that  way  in  this  section. — [A.  Underwood,  Brnzoria. 

I  have  tried  making  lights  all  over  the  farm,  with  no  success.  The  moth  would 
pass  about  the  cotton  seeming  not  to  see  it  till  disturbed.  I  do  not  think  anything 
in  the  way  of  destroying  molhs  will  answer,  as  they  will  fly  long  distances  (at  night) 
from  other  sections  of  the  State,  and  fill  your  field  with  eggs  in  a  couple  of  days. 
Have  never  used  sweetened  poisons. — [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

In  184G  and  '47  some  planters  made  pine  fires  on  scaffolds  in  the  field,  and  had  some 
hands  catching  the  worms,  and  in  1864  I  put  20  hands  on  three  acres  to  killing  the 
worms,  Vnt  neither  had  any  good  results. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

But  few  efforts  have  been  made  to  destroy  the  moths,  farmers  of  late  years  chiefly 
relying  on  poisoning  the  worms.  However,  the  idea  is  gaining  foothold  that  it  is 
better  to  try  and  destroy  the  moth,  and  thereby  prevent  the  appearance  of  the  worm 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  465 

in  destructive  numbers.  The  best  mode  seems  to  be  to  set  up  lights  in  the  field  above 
or  in  front  of  some  sweet  adhesive  substance.  Moths  appear  to  be  attracted  by  all 
sweet  substances.  I  have  seen  them  attracted  in  thousands,  after  the  first  brood  had 
webbed  up,  by  dried  peaches  that  were  dried  on  boards  in  the  sun,  and  had  been  cov- 
ered at  night  with  boards,  the  moths  collecting  in  thousands  under  the  covering  of 
the  dry  peaches,  hundreds  being  killed  by  a  lamp  in  a  short  time.  A  mouse  made  a 
nest  with  the  dead  moths  the  same  night. — [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

I  am  satisfied  that  this  moth  does  not  come  here  to  toil,  neither  to  spin,  nor  to  hunt 
sweet-scented  flowers,  nor  boards  nor  trees  nor  any  other  thing  besmeared  with  sweet- 
ened substances,  but  to  lay  its  eggs,  nothing  more,  then  lie  down  and  die. — [P.  S. 
Clarke,  Waller. 

Watermelons  cut  open  and  spread  around  with  arsenic  sprinkled  on  them  will  kill 
the  moth.— [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

I  have  tried  to  allure  the  moth  with  fire,  both  lamp  and  torch,  also  molasses  and 
vinegar,  with  but  little  effect.  The  only  one  that  promises  to  be  a  safe  remedy  is  a 
preparation  of  arsenic  manufactured  at  Galveston,  Tex.  It  is  applied  by  sprinkling 
liquid  like  Paris  green,  known  as  the  "Texas  cotton-worm  destroyer." — [J.  W.  Jack- 
son, Titus. 

I  used  with  full  effect  the  arsenite  of  soda  combined  with  a  little  vinegar  and  mo- 
lasses. I  did  not  use  any  intoxicating  liquids  as  I  was  fully  satisfied  that  every  moth 
imbibing  the  poisoned  sweet  was  instantly  killed,  none  of  the  dead  appearing  at  any 
appreciable  distance  from  the  pans. — [William  J.  Jones,  Galveston. 


QUESTION  7 a. — Are  the  moths  most  attracted  to  sweetened  substances  when  smeared  onto 
trees,  boards,  #c.,  or  when  contained  in  vessels  in  or  near  which  lamps  may  be  lighted  ? 

ALABAMA. 

Have  always  noticed  that  while  making  molasses  at  night,  unless  some  protection 
is  used,  the  evaporator  will'  be  frequently  choked  with  the  moth,  either  attracted  by 
the  odor  of  the  cooking  sirup  or  by  the  light,  or  both.— [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

Attracted  to  vessels  when  near  lights,  and  great  numbers  are  destroyed  by  the 
lights.— [John  D.  Johnson,  Sumter. 

I  think  it  would  make  but  little  difference  wherever  it  was  placed.— [R.  W.  Russell, 
Lowndes. 

I  do  not  know  that  they  are  attracted  by  saccharine  substances.— [R.  S.  Williams, 
Montgomery. 

They  are  often  seen  in  great  numbers  under  apple  trees  where  the  apples  have  fallen 
and  were  rotting  on  the  ground;  also  under  peach  trees  where  the  peaches  have 
fallen.— [H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 

On  trees,  boards,  &c.— [J.  A.  Calaway,  Montgomery. 

Of  the  attraction  of  molasses  or  any  other  preparation  on  trees  where  lamps  or  fires 
are  lighted  we  have  no  experience.  They  are  all  certainly  too  slow  for  this  emergency, 
when  the  Lord  Almighty  only  knows  how  many  eggs  one  moth  will  lay. — [Dr.  John 
Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

I  do  not  know ;  lights  do  not  attract  them  much,  though  sometimes  one  may  be  seen 
flying  around  the  lamp. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

We  have  tried  fires.— [Knox,  Minge,  Evans,  and  Hale. 

I  know  that  the  wine-press  will  attract  them  by  thousands  in  the  night  two  or  three 
miles  from  the  cotton-field.  I  have  noticed  the  tubs  left  under  the  press  at  night 
would  have  two  or  three  hundred  moths  in  next  morning ;  no  lights  near  the  wine- 
press ;  this  the  1st  of  September.  Never  heard  of  any  one  trying  any  of  the  articles 
named. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecnh. 

I  have  never  tried  sweetened  substances,  &c. ;  but  I  see  they  are  readily  attracted 
to  newly  pulled  fodder.— [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

Have  no  knowledge  on  this  question.  We  noticed  this  year  that  the  moths  were 
more  numerous  under  the  persimmon  trees  when  the  fruit  was  ripe  and  fallen  on  the 
ground.  They  collected  in  large  numbers  under  the  trees,  I  suppose  sucking  the  sweet 
of  the  persimmon. — [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

Never  heard  of  sweetened  substances  being  used.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

I  do  not  think  they  are. — [  J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

The  moth  is  often  found  feeding  under  apple  and  peach  trees,  where  decayed  fruit 
is  plentiful ;  also  later  in  th.e  season  under  persimmon  trees. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

As  yet  I  have  not  been  fortunate  in  getting  a  solution  by  which  the  moths  are  readily 
killed.  I  tried  corrosive  sublimate  and  arsenious  acid,  with  rum,  molasses,  and  water 
in  various  proportions.  The  solutions  I  have  smeared  upon  pine  trees  standing  in  the 
field,  upon  little  shelves  set  up  at  places  in  the  field,  and  upon  a  dish  placed  upon  a 
stump.  To  one  pine  tree  in  particular  tiie  moths  seemed  to  be  attracted  most  strongly. 

30  c  i 


466    •  REPORT   UPON    COTTOX   INSECTS 

The  shelves  attracted  very  few  comparatively.  I  have  used  for  poisons,  aisenious 
acid,  corrosive  sublimate,  strychnia,  and  potassium  cyanide;  these  I  have  mixed  in 
varying  proportions  with  rum  and  sweetened  water.  The  bait  appears  attractive 
enough,  and  I  see  the  moths  partaking  of  it,  and  yet  no  dead  moths  are  visible  next 
morning.  The  proportion  of  rum  which  I  have  mixed  with  these  poisons  has  been 
sometimes  one-half,  and  from  that  down.  Of  the  poisons  named  above  the  potassium 
cyanide  is  perhaps  most  easily  soluble  in  the  liquids  used.  Smearing  the  sweetened 
liquids  upon  the  trunks  of  trees  is,  according  to  my  experience,  the  best  way  of  ex- 
posing them.  I  have  not  seen  many  moths  around  the  dishes  set  up  on  shelves  and 
on  stumps.  The  arsenious  acid,  strychnia,  and  corrosive  sublimate  I  dissolved  to  sat- 
uration in  the  sweetened  liquids ;  sweetened  water  and  vinegar  I  have  also  found  to 
be  one  of  the  most  attractive  baits. — [E.  A.  Smith,  Tuscaloosa. 

The  moths  are  attracted  by  light. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

Moths  are  attracted  by  nothing  at  night  but  the  lights,  which  they  go  into  as  soon 
as  they  can  reach  it. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

I  have  no  experiments  to  aid  me  in  answering  the  inquiry.  They  seem  to  be  greatly 
attracted  (that  is  the  fly)  to  places  where  we  make  molasses;  will  get  into  the  evapo- 
rator, if  it  contains  partially  bpiled  j  uice,  all  night  in  immense  quantities  unless  covered. 
Also  get  into  the  molasses  troughs.  Lights  are  attractive  to  the  fly.— [Andrew  Jay, 
Conecuh. 

Moths  are  not  attracted  by  any  sweet  substance  or  device  in  this  county. — [H.  Haw- 
kins, Barbour. 

Failures.  I  think  none  of  them  of  the  least  value.  They  are  impracticable. — [C.  C. 
Howard,  Autauga. 

Sweetened  substances,  such  as  honey-water  molasses-water,  or,  best  of  all,  fruit 
juices,  placed  in  closely-sheltered  places,  in  shallow  vessels,  attracts  most.  But  I  hold 
the  opinion  that  the  moth  only  seeks  juices  after  the  egg-laying  period  is  past  to  sup- 
ply the  wastes  of  vitality,  i.  e.,  in  old  age. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

I  do  not  believe  the  moth  is  attracted  by  any  sweetened  substances  whatever ;  if 
they  get  to  it  I  think  it  is  accidental. — [  J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

ARKANSAS. 

Molasses  and  other  sticky  substances  will  catch  many  moths  when  near  lamps  or 
candles,  but  not  otherwise.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 
There  has  been  nothing  of  the  kind  tried  here. — [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

They  are  not  attracted  by  any  bait  of  any  kind,  nor  has  any  known  benefit  been  at- 
tained by  the  use  of  any  lights.— [E.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

I  cannot  say  I  think  they  are  drawn  there  by  the  light  of  the  lamps. — [M.  Kemp, 
Marion. 

We  have  never  tried  sweetened  substances. — [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

They  have  no  disposition  for  anything  of  the  kind.  They  appear  to  recognize  the 
fact  that  they  have  a  mission  to  fill,  and  they  go  forward  and  do  it. — [S.  P.  Odom, 
Dooly. 

Never  tested  ;  can't  say ;  no  attention  is  paid  until  the  worm  is  on  us ;  then  they  go 
to  work  to  destroy  it.  They  live  on  careless,  hoping  it  will  appear  no  more. — [William 
A.  Harris,  Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

I  have  no  knowledge  of  moths  being  fond  of  sugar,  molasses,  or  other  sweets,  and 
was  not  aware  of  any  such  plan  of  catching  them. — [D.  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana, 

I  have  never  known  the  moths  to  be  attracted  to  anything  but  lights.— [Dr.  I.  U. 
Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

I  do  not  think  they  eat  anything  sweet.  They  will  fly  around  a  light  at  night,  as 
any  other  fly  will  do.— [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Lamps  lighted  are  a  greater  attraction  to  the  moths  than  sweetened  water. — [C.  F. 
Sherriod,  Lowudes. 

Nothing  known.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

I  always  thought  that  the  moth  was  attracted  by  the  light,  and  not  by  any  sweet- 
ened substances  near  it. — [John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

The  light  reflected  from  any  fluid  placed  near  a  lamp  or  light,  or  even  starlight  or 
moonlight,  would  prove  more  attractive  than  if  spread  on  boards,  trees,  &c.  The  light 
seems  to  be  the  attraction. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

I  do  not  believe  that  sweetened  substances  will  attract  them  at  all.— [George  V. 
Webb,  Arnite. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO   CIRCULAR.  467 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

Never  has  been  tried.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

As  all  moths,  these  are  attracted  by  a  light  to  a  certain  extent,  but  we  do  not  believe 
that  any  kind  of  i'ood  will  be  found  to  attract  them  at  all.  When  they  are  found  around 
vessels  or  boards  or  trees  smeared  with  molasses  or  vinegar,  we  believe  their  presence 
is  simply  a  coincidence  and  not  the  result  of  a  search  for  food. — [James  W.  Grace, 
Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

Perhaps  the  moths  are  most  attracted  to  sweetened  substances  when  near  lights ; 
but,  as  I  have  said,  the  lights  are  harmful.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

The  moths  are  attracted  most  by  lamps  in  the  night,  set  on  posts  or  stumps.  Place 
the  lamps  or  lights,  as  may  be,  in  a  flat  tin  pan  with  some  kerosene  oil  in  it,  enough 
to  destroy  the  moth  ;  by  that  means  it  can  be  caught.  Smearing  sweet  substances  on 
trees,  boards,  &c.,  will  not  effect  the  destruction  of  the  moth  much. — [O.  H.  P.  Garret, 
Claiborne. 

When  in  vessels  near  lighted  lamps.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

I  have  found  halves  of  melons  left  on  tables  all  night  covered  with  the  moth  in  the 
morning,  but  not  killed. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Are  mostly  attracted  by  fruit,  such  as  peaches,  figs,  and  melons. — [T.  B.  Tackaberry, 
Polk. 

The  lamp-light  business  is  a  failure.  That  is  the  plan  I  adopted  ten  years  ago  and 
abandoned  it.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

Many  moths  have  been  caught  with  molasses  and  water,  but  it  did  not  appear  to 
diminish  their  numbers. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Yes.  I  have  now,  in  my  cotton,  lamps  placed  with  water  and  kerosene  oil  in  them, 
for  the  purpose  of  catching  the  moth,  and  would  state  that  I  am  succeeding  finely, 


catching  thousands,  &c. — [Natt  Holman,  Fayette. 
In  vessels  near  wh 


ere  lamps  or  torches  have  been  lighted.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 
I  have  placed  the  poisoned  sweets  with  lighted  lamps  in  many  localities  in  my  cot- 
ton fields,  and  have  found  dead  millers  in  the  pans  and  around  the  lamps,  but  not  in 
any  great  numbers ;  none  were  found  about  the  boards  smeared  with  poisoned  molas- 
ses.— [William  J.  Jones,  Galveston. 


QUESTION  7  &.— Are  any  flowers  Known  to  le  attractive  to  the  moth?    If  so,  specify  them 
and  their  season  of  blooming. 

ALABAMA. 

I  am  not  aware  that  any  flower  is  especially  attractive  to  the  moth  except  the  pea 
flower.  I  have  seen  the  moth  in  the  pea-field  (the  speckled  cow-pea),  but  never  saw 
it  eating  or  sucking  the  flower. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

I  think  the  blossom  of  the  pea.  The  moths  go  much  in  adjoining  corn-fields. — [C.  C. 
Howard,  Autauga. 

I  think  not.— [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

I  don't  think  the  fly  cares  for  any  flower. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

I  know  of  no  flower  that  has  any  attraction  for  the  moth.— [ J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sum- 
ter. 

I  know  of  none. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

We  do  not  know. — [  J.  A.  Calaway,  Montgomery. 

I  have  often  seen  them  about  the  field-pea  as  if  sucking  something  from  the  upper 
end  of  the  stem  to  which  the  pea  is  attached,  but  I  have  never  seen  them  notice  the 
bloom  or  any  other  flower.  The  cotton-moth  is  very  destructive  to  fruit  of  all  kinds. 
We  cannot  have  any  peaches,  grapes,  apples,  or  figs  late  in  the  season  on  account  of 
them ;  they  suck  the  juice  and  ruin  the  fruit.— [D.  Lee,  Lowndea. 

No.— [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

No.— [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

I  know  of  none. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

None.-[H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Don't  know.— [P.  D.  Bowles,  Coneeuh. 

None  that  I  know  of.— [  J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

Do  not  know  of  any. — [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

Have  never  known  any. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

There  are  no  flowers  known  to  me  which  are  attractive  to  the  moth. — [Andrew  Jay, 
Coneeuh. 


468  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 


Don't  know  any. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia 
I  do  not  know  of  any.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

I  have  frequently  seen  them  feed  on  the  cotton  flower. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 
It  is  not  known  that  the  moth  is  attracted  by  any  flower  other  than  cotton. — [R. 
Gamble,  Leoii. 

GEORGIA. 

Do  not  think  flowers  attract  the  moths.— [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

None.— [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

No  flowers  attract  them.— [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

None  that  I  know  of. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

Do  not  know  of  any. — [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

I  have  been  satisfied,  from  testing,  the  secretion  from  the  glands  on  midrib  of  leaf  is 
sweet.  I  find  that  the  honey-bee  has  discovered  the  same.  They  seem  to  habitually 
neglect  the  cotton-bloom  and  go  to  the  glands  at  base  of  open  bloom  and  of  young 
bolls  from  which  the  blooms  have  just  fallen,  and  occasionally  the  glands  of  unopened 
blooms.  The  older  bolls  they  neglect.  Two  or  three  species  of  wasps  do  the  same. 
This  seems  to  indicate  that  the  glands  of  the  blooms  and  of  younger  bolls  are  most 
active  in  secreting,  and  it  may  be  that  so  soon  as  the  cotton-plant  blossoms  in  spring 
it  is  capable  of  furnishing  sustenance  to  the  Aletia  moth. — [ J.  E.  Willett,  Macon. 

LOUISIANA. 

I  am  not  aware  of  the  moth  being  attracted  by  any  kind  of  blossom  or  flower. — [D. 
M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

I  know  of  none.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

There  is  no  flower  known  to  be  attractive  to  the  moth ;  not  even  the  cotton-flower. — 
[John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I  have  never  seen  one  on  a  flower ;  have  seen  large  quantities  on  pea  vines  ;  they  did 
not  seem  to  feed,  only  resorted  there  for  cover  during  the  day. — [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowudes. 
No.— [C.  Welch,  Covington. 
None. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

No  flowers  are  known  to  attract  the  moth. — [John  C.  Russell,  Madison 
None.— [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson, 
tfojue.— [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

None. — .[  James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

I  have  no  knowledge  of  the  attractiveness  of  any  flower  to  the  moth,  though  doubt- 
less if  due  diligence  was  used  some  flower  might  be  found  which  possesses  attractive 
qualities  to  the  moth.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

I  do  not  think  any  flower  attracts  the  moth  ;  it  is  bent  on  the  cotton-leaf  for  a  suit- 
able place  to  deposit  its  eggs,  while  the  bloom  has  no  attraction. — [O.  H.  P.  Garrett, 
Washington. 

None  known.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

No.— [R.  Wipprecht. 

None.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

If  they  feed  on  any  flower  it  must  be  that  of  cotton.  I  think  they  never  quit  the 
field  unless  carried  by  winds. — [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Have  never  known  them  to  feed  from  any  flowers.  They  are  fond  of  fruit,  and  will 
collect  at  night  in  great  numbers  on  dried  peaches.  They  attack  very  ripe  apples  and 
peaches  on  the  trees,  and  entirely  ruin  some  of  the  fruit. — [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

None. — [A.  Underwood.  Brazoria. 

So  far  I  have  not  noticed  them  on  any  other  but  cotton-blooms.  Some  years  ago, 
when  Paris  green  was  first  employed  for  the  destruction  of  the  worm,  large  numbers 
of  moths  were  noticed  after  the  first  brood  ;  but  few  worms  appeared  at  the  second 
brood,  however,  the  inference  being  that  large  numbers  of  the  moths  had  been  killed 
by  poisoned  cotton -flowers,  having  been  found  dead. — [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

None  that  I  ever  heard  of. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

None  that  I  have  ever  Jieard  of. — [Natt  Holman,  Fayette. 

In  addition  to  the  cotton-plant  and  cow-pea  there  is  the  sweet-potato  vine  (green 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIECULAE.  469 

till  heavy  frost),  besides  the  honey-dew  to  be  found  upon  the  leaves  of  many  forest 
trees  throughout  the  entire  cotton-belt. — [William  J.  Jones,  Galveston. 

I  have  noticed  the  moth  closely,  and  have  never  seen  them  attracted  by  any  flow- 
ers.-[  J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


QUESTION  7c. —  What  do  you  Tcnoiv  of  your  oivn  observation  of  the  influence  of  jute  grown 
near  or  with  the  cotton  f 

ALABAMA. 

I  am  unacquainted  entirely  with  the  growth  of  jute.  'While  I  have  never  experi- 
mented with  a  vine  to  any  general  benefit,  yet,  from  casual  observation,  I  think  cot- 
ton planted  with  corn,  say  in  alternate  rows,  would  be  more  likely  to  escape  being 
destroyed.  This  idea  grew  out  of  seeing  some  stalks  of  cotton  come  up  from  cotton- 
seed used  for  manuring  corn  and  allowed  to  mature,  which  retained  its  leaves  and 
made  late  cotton  when  the  fields  around  were  eaten  clean. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

I  know  nothing  ;  never  saw  it  growing. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

Nothing.— [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

We  do  not  suppose  that  there  is  a  stalk  of  jute  in  this  beat.  In  fact  it  is  a  plant  we 
never  saw,  and  know  nothing  about  it. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

Nothing.— [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

No  jute  grown  in  this  county. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

It  has  never  been  tried  that  I  know  of — [  J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

Nothing. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Nothing.— [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

Nothing. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

No  jute  grown  here.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Have  no  knowledge  about  it. — [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

Jute  is  not  cultivated  here. — [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

None;  no  jute  ever  grown  in  this  locality. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

I  never  saw  jute  grown  with  or  near  cotton. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

Nothing.— [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

Nothing. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

Nothing. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

No  jute  grown  in  the  county.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Macon. 

I  do  not  know.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Millers.  „ 

No  jute  growing  here. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

I  have  grown  cotton  and  jute  side  by  side  with  no  good  results.  To  test  the  matter 
I  one  year  planted  alternate  rows  of  cotton  and  jute.  The  caterpillars  eat  the  cotton 
clean  and  webbed  up  on  the  jute. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 

No  jute  ever  grown  here.— [John  B.  Carrin,  Taylor. 

GEORGIA. 

Nothing. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

None  whatever. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

Nothing  known  of  jute.— [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

Nothing.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

Never  saw  a  stock  of  jute  in  my  life. — [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

Nothing.— [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

LOUISIANA. 

Nothing.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

Have  no  personal  knowledge  as  to  the  planting  of  jute  near  cotton  to  keep  away  the 
army  worm.  Have  heard  of  something  of  the  kind,  but  placed  no  confidence  in  what 
was  said  about  it.  Have  also  heard  something  about  the  castor-oil  plant  and  James- 
town weed  having  the  same  effect  when  planted  about  or  through  the  cotton-fields. — 
[D.  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

I  know  nothing  about  the  jute  growing  among  the  cotton. — [John  A.  Maryman, 
East  Feliciana. 

I  have  no  knowledge. — [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

In  1877  I  planted  jute  within  30  feet  of  a  cotton-field.  Worms  did  not  eat  up  the 
cottou  until  late  in  the  season,  but  I  can't  say  it  was  the  jute  that  delayed  .them ; 
hardly  think  it  was,  as  they  would  have  as  little  regard  for  jute  as  for  any  other 
weed. — [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

Nothing.— [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

I  know  of  none. — [William  T.  Lewis,  Winston. 

Nothing.— [C.  Welch,  Covington. 


470  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS 

Never  have  seen  jute  near  cotton  and  cannot  say. — [John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

Nothing.— [D.L  .  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

It  has  as  yet  not  been  tried  here.— [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

We  have  never  planted  or  seen  planted  the  jute,  so  of  our  own  knowledge  know 
nothing  of  its  effects;  although  we  have  seen  an  essay  wherein  it  was  stated  that  a 
field  around  which  a  row  of  jute  was  planted  in  Texas  was  not  touched  by  the  worm 
during  a  destructive  worm  season  and  when  the  cotton  all  around  was  destroyed. — 
[James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

I  know  nothing  of  the  influence  of  jute  grown  in  the  vicinity  of  the  cotton-field. — 
[A.  W.  Hunt.  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Several  years  ago  the  Agricultural  Department  furnished  packages  of  jute-seed  to 
farmers  with  the  request  they  would  plant  with  a  view  to  its  effect  on  the  cotton- 
worm  ;  but  few  tried  it,  and  they  expressed  the  opinion  that  if  a  sufficient  breadth  be 
planted  it  might  arrest  their  progress  while  traveling. — [J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

Jute  has  never  been  grown  here. — [Samuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

Nothing.  I  planted  jute  near  a  cotton-field,  but  only  a  few  seed  came  up. — [P.  S. 
Watts,  Hardin. 

Have  never  tried  the  effect  of  jute  grown  near  cotton.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Wash- 
ington. 

Nothing.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

Nothing.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Nothing.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

No  influence. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Have  no  experience.  It  is  said  though  that  hemp  planted  around  cotton-fields  will 
to  some  extent  prevent  the  approach  of  the  moth ;  jute  being  an  analogous  plant  may 
have  the  same  effect.— [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

Know  nothing  of  the  influences  of  jute,  but  have  seen  many  other  similar  notions 
tried  and  fail.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

Never  heard  of  any  being  planted.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

None  whatever. — [  J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

Never  have  grown  any  or  seen  any  growing. — [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 


QUESTION  Id. — Has  any  effort  been  made  to  destroy  the  moth  in  ite  winter-quarters  f 

ALABAMA. 

No.— [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

None.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

None.— [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

I  do  not  believe  the  moth  has  any  "  winter-quarters."  Have  never  seen  a  moth  in 
winter. — [J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

None.  The  opinion  is  held,  I  think  correctly,  that  the  moths  that  spend  the  winter 
fail  to  find  cotton-plants  upon  which  to  deposit  their  eggs,  and  consequently  fail  to 
propagate,  so  any  effort  to  destroy  them  would  be  wasted. — [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

No. — [J.  A.  Calaway,  Montgomery. 

The  moth's  winter-quarters  are  in  shuck-pens,  fodder-lofts,  attics,  hollow  trees,  un- 
der pine  bark,  in  rotten  wood,  &c.,  perfectly  inaccessible  to  man. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy, 
Montgomery. 

Not  that  I  am  aware  of.— [ J.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

None. — [Knox,  Mirigo,  and  Evans,  Macon. 

None. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

None.-[R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

None  that  I  know  of.— [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

None. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

None.— [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

No  effort  made.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox 

None. — [J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

Think  not ;  never  heard  of  any  one  attempting  to  do  so  in  winter.— [P.  D.  Bowles, 
Conecuh. 

None.— [  J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

Not  within  my  knowledge. — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autanga. 

I  know  of  no  effort  to  destroy  the  moth.— [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

I  have  never  heard  of  any.    Any  such  effort  would  be  altogether  impracticable. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  471 

The  moths  are  too  much  scattered.  They  lie  up  in  the  roofs  of  all  the  houses  on  the 
farm ;  under  the  boards  or  shingles;  under  the  loose  bark  of  dead  trees,  either  on  the 
farm  or  in  the  woods.  I  guess  that  I  shall  winter  a  dozen  or  two  in  my  dwelling- 
house  next  winter.  There  are  more  than  that  number  in  my  house  to-day,  and  as  they 
are  daily  emerging  from  the  chrysalides  the  number  I  suppose  will  increase.  The 
trouble  would  be  to  get  at  them. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

None  that  I  know  of.  This  would  be  hard  to  do.  Pine  timber  in  our  clearings  after 
the  sap  turns  is  very  valuable  for  rails  and  posts,  and  would  be  entirely  destroyed  by 
fires  in  destroying  the  moths  in  fields  near. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

ARKANSAS. 

The  burning  of  all  cotton  and  corn  stalks  or  other  trash  found  on  the  ground  has 
shown  that  ground  so  treated  was  least  attacked. — [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 
None. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 
None  that  I  know  of.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

None. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 

These  winter-quarters  are  not  supposed  to  be  known. — [Robert  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

No  effort  made  to  destroy  the  moth  in  winter- quarters. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

None.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

Never  here.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

I  do  not  believe  the  moth  has  any  "  winter-quarters,"  but  remains  in  the  chrysalis 
during  the  winter. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

No  effort  has  been  made  to  destroy  the  moth  in  winter-quarters.— [Timothy  Fussell, 
Coffee. 

Nothing  in  this  locality. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

It  is  not  here  in  its  winter- quarters. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

LOUISIANA. 

No.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

No  effort  has  been  made  to  destroy  the  moth  in  its  winter-quarters  that  I  know  of. — 
[John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 
I  know  of  none.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

None.    Its  winter-quarters  are  not  known.— [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 
It  never  having  been  found  where  the  moth  winters,  no  efforts  have  been  made  to 
destroy  them  there. — [John  C  Russel,  Madison. 
No  effort  made. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 
No.— [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 
No.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 
No.— [C.  Welch,  Covington. 
None  that  I  know  of. — [William  S.  Lewis,  Winston 

TENNESSEE. 

No  effort  has  been  made  to  destroy  the  moth  in  its  winter-quarters,  nor  do  I  think 
any  such  effort  would  be  likely  to  prove  very  successful. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  Perry. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

None.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

TEXAS. 

None.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

No.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Nothing  has  been  done  to  destroy  them ;  it  is  very  doubtful  about  their  remaining 
here  all  winter.  From  the  coast  counties  a  more  complete  statement  may  be  obtained. — 
[  J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

None.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

Has  never  been  found  there  to  my  knowledge. — [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

Burning  the  old  cotton-stalks. — [H.  J.  H.  Brensing,  Bowie. 

No.— [R.  Wipprecht. 

None  that  I  know  of.— [O.  H.  P.  Garret,  Washington. 

No.— [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

None  have  been  so  found. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

None ;  as  the  thing  would  be  impossible  from  the  great  abundance  of  timber  in  West- 
ern Texas,  and  the  great  distance  between  farms. — [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

None  that  I  know  of.  My  impression  is  that  its  winter-quarters  would  be  as  hard 
to  find  as  a  remedy  to  effectually  destroy  the  caterpillar.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

None  whatever. — [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

None. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 


472  REPORT  UPOX  COTTON  INSECTS 

QUESTION  7c. — Have  any  systematic  and  organized  attempts  beenmade  to  gather  and  destroy 
the  chrysalides,  or  to  facilitate  their  collection  and  destruction  by  furnishing  inviting  mate- 
rial for  the  ivorms  to  spin  up  in? 

ALABAMA. 

None.  The  first  generation  find  cotton-leaves  enough  to  web  up  in.  The  next  are 
forced  to  find  webbing  places  on  grass,  weeds,  or  bushes.  To  capture  the  first  chrysalis 
is  impracticable,  for  the  reason  that  each  plant  would  have  to  be  overlooked,  and  to 
attempt  to  gather  up  the  second  generation  would  be  useless  when  the  damage  is  done. — 
[P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

I  never  have  known  an  effort  made  to  destroy  the  chrysalides  in  any  way  whatever. — 
[  J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

None.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

None. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

No.— [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

None. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery - 

No  attempts  have  ever  been  made  to  destroy  the  chrysalides. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy, 
Montgomery, 

None. — [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

None.— [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

None.— [  J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

Not  in  my  knowledge. — [  J.  TV.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

No  organized  efforts  have  been  made  in  the  destruction  inquired  about. — [A.  D.  Ed« 
wards,  Macon. 

Nothing  of  the  kind  has  come  under  my  observation. — [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

None  that  I  know  of. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

None.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

None.— [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

I  have  not  heard  of  any. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

There  has  been  none.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Don't  know  of  any. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

None.  The  worms  can  be  as  easily  taken,  i.  e.  caught,  as  the  chrysalides,  and  I  doubt 
not  that  the  cotton  suits  him  to  a  T  to  spin  up  in.— [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

There  has  been  no  such  effort  made  to  destroy  the  chrysalis  as  contained  in  this 
question. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

Nothing.— [P.  T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

None ;  and  this  cannot  be  accomplished  so  as  to  prevent  the  destruction  of  the  cot- 
ton crop,  for  the  reason  that  the  first,  second,  and  third  crops  of  worms  are  hatched 
when  there  is  an  abundant  foliage  of  cotton,  and  no  contrivance  could  induce  the 
worm  to  leave  the  cotton-leaf  to  spin.  It  is  on  the  leaf  at  maturity,  and  at  this  point 
commences  immediately  to  spin.  After  this  third  crop  is  out  they  destroy  all  the 
leaf  and  foliage  and  have  nothing  in  which  to  spin  except  weed  or  grass  near  the 
field,  and  not  finding  this  they  soon  die.  Better  keep  supply  out  of  their  way  than 
furnish  them. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

None.— [J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

ARKANSAS. 

Nothing. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

None.— [E.T.  Dale,  Miller. 

Nothing  of  the  kind  has  been  attempted.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

None. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 
None. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

No  organized  effort  has  been  made  to  destroy  the  chrysalis  or  to  furnish  inviting 
materialfor  the  worms  to  spin  up  in — [T.  Fussell,  Coffee. 
None  in  this  county. — [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

Nothing  of  the  kind  has  ever  been  done  here. — [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 
Nothing  done  to  destroy  them. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 
None  in  this  locality. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

LOUISIANA. 

None.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

Have  never  heard  of  any  attempts  to  destroy  the  insect  until  it  is  feared  that  it  may 
do  injury  to  the  growing  plants— say  during  summer  and  fall,  while  it  is  breeding  rap- 
idly, and  eating  rapidly  also. — [D.  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

It  would  be  useless  to  try  to  furnish  the  worm  anything  to  spin  up  in,  as  they  are 
too  numerous. — [John  A.  Marytuan,  East  Feliciana. 

I  have  heard  of  none.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 


APPENDIX    II— ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  473 

MISSISSIPPI.     ' 

There  was  some  little  effort  made  a  few  years  ago,  but  was  given  up  in  dispair. — [  J. 
W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

None  that  I  know  of.— [W.  T.  Lewis,  Winston. 

No  effort  beyond  that  of  winter  plowing. — [Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

No.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

No.— [C.  Welch,  Covingtou. 

No  efforts  to  destroy  chrysalides,  or  any  material  for  the  worm  to  spin  up  in. — [John 
C.  Russel,  Madison. 

No,  and  never  will  be  with  success ;  the  numbers  are  too  great.  They  will  only  feed 
and  spin  in  cotton  while  there  is  a  leaf  on  it. — [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

None.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

Experiments  various  aud  numerous  were  made  years  since  upon  this  subject,  and 
continued  until  experience  proved  them  all  worthless. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

No  effort  has  been  made  in  this  State  to  destroy  the  chrysalides. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M. 
D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

None. — [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 

None.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

None.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

None.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

No.-[P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

No.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

There  have  been  no  organized  attempts  to  destroy  the  chrysalides  or  facilitate  their 
collection  and  destruction  by  furnishing  inviting  material  for  the  worms  to  spin  up 
in.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

None. — [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

None.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

None;  they  only  web  up  on  cotton. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

None. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

There  has  been  nothing  of  the  kind  done. — [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

None  in  this  locality ;  but  I  believe  it  can  be  done  to  such  an  extent  that  the  re- 
mainder would  be  harmless  to  the  plant. — [  J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


QUESTION  If. —  What  has  been  done  toivard  destroying  the  eggs  f 

ALABAMA. 

Nothing  has  ever  been  done  to  destroy  the  eggs,  and  I  presume  never  will  be.  They 
are  deposited  in  little  squares  on  the  under  side  of  the  cotton-leaf. — [H.  Hawkins, 
Barbour. 

Nothing.— [J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

Nothing,  as  far  as  I  know.  It  takes  a  good  eye  to  find  them,  and  I  think  nothing 
but  gas  or  spray  would  reach  them. — [C.  C  Howard,  Autauga. 

Nothing.  They  are  very  small,  barely  visible  to  the  natural  eye  placed  singly,  the 
moth  rarely  ever  placing  more  than  one  on  the  under  side  of  the  leaf.  Other  moths 
use  the  same  leaf,  and  often  five  or  six  eggs  are  found  on  a  leaf. — [P.  T.  Graves, 
Lowndes. 

Nothing  so  far  as  known. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

Nothing  has  been  done  in  this  section. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

Nothing.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

Nothing. — [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

I  never  have  known  an  effort  made  to  destroy  the  eggs  of  the  moth. — [  J.  N.  Gilmore, 
Sumter. 

Nothing. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

Nothing. — [  J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

Nothing.  A  succession  of  hot,  dry  days  will  scorch  or  dry  up  the  eggs  and  prevent 
them  from  hatching. — [ J.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

Nothing. — [  J.  M.  Dn  Bose,  Montgomery. 

Nothing. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

Nothing.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Satisfied  nothing.— [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 


474  EEPORT   UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

Nothing.— [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale* 

Nothing. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Nothing. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

Nothing.— [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

Nothing;  the  eggs  cannot  be  destroyed  by  man. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

Nothing.— [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

Nothing  has  been  done  toward  destroying  the  eggs. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

ARKANSAS. 

Topping  the  cotton  and  burning  the  tops  has  been  tried  in  a  few  instances,  but  not 
sufficiently  to  mark  any  decided  effect  except  in  the  fields  so  treated. — [E.  T.  Dale, 
Miller. 

Nothing  whatever.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

Nothing. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 


some 


Nothing;  it  strikes  me  it  would  be  a  difficult  job. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 

Nothing;  the  eggs  are  deposited  singly,  the  inoth  depositing  her  burden  of  omuo 
hundred  and  fifty  or  more  eggs  over  the  space  of  many  acres  ;  they  are  placed  under 
the  leaf  and  are  very  minute. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Nothing  in  this  county.— [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 
Nothing  whatever.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

Nothing,  except  to  destroy  the  moths  before  the  eggs  are  deposited. — [M.  Kemp,  Ma- 
rion. 

Nothing  at  all.— [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooley. 
Nothing  at  all.— [E.  M.  Thompson.  Jackson. 
Nothing  has  ever  been  done  to  destroy  the  eggs. — [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

LOUISIANA. 

Nothing.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

Nothing  has  been  done  toward  destroying  the  eggs. — [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feli- 
ciana. 
Nothing.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

No  effort  to  destroy  the  egg. — [John  C.  Russel,  Madison. 

Nothing. — Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

Nothing.— [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

Nothing  that  I  know  of.— [William  T.  Lewis,  Winston. 

Nothing.— [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

Nothing.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

Nothing.— L  George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH  CAROLINA 

Nothing.-[F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

All  efforts  abandoned  as  useless. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

Nothing  has  been  done  to  destroy  the  eggs,  except  as  an  experiment.  I  have  been 
informed  of  a  wonderful  success  in  the  prevention  of  the  ravages  of  the  whole  class  of 
noxious  cotton-insects  by  a  friend,  who  on  one  occasion  mulched  the  seed  with  a  mulch 
whose  principal  ingredient  was  milk  of  sulphur,  vulgarly  so  called,  and  on  another 
occasion  of  sowing  sulphur  with  the  seed. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Nothing.— [P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

Nothing.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Nothing.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

Nothing.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

Nothing.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Nothing  has  been  done  to  destroy  the  eggs;  they  are  too  numerous. — [O.  H.  P.  Gar- 
rett,  Washington. 

Their  destruction  seems  to  bo  impossible,  the  number  being  too  immense  and  dis- 
tributed over  too  great  a  space. — [  J.  H.  Kraucher,  Austin. 

Nothing.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  475 

Nothing.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Nothing.— [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

Nothing.— [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

None.  My  observation  is  that  they  deposit  their  eggs  early  in  the  night,  and  that 
they  hatch  in  a  few  hours. — [Natt  Holman,  Fayette. 

None  in  this  locality.  The  destruction  of  the  chrysalides  would  be  much  easier  and 
more  effectual.— [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


QUESTION  7g.—Has  anything  been  found  more  generally  useful  and  applicable,  or  cheaper, 
than  the  use  of  the  Paris  green  mixture  to  destroy  the  worms  ? 

ALABAMA. 

Among  planters  a  general  doubt  prevails  as  to  the  value  of  Paris  green.  That  it 
will  kill  the  worms  that  eat  it  is  not  doubted,  but  to  distribute  it  on  all  parts  of  the 
foliage  is  practically  impossible.  That,  with  heavy  rains  cleaning  the  leaves  for  a 
fresh  raid  of  worms,  with  a  renewal  of  the  fight  at  a  time  when  cotton-picking  claims 
all  the  labor  of  the  farm,  has  caused  many  planters  to  doubt  the  value  of  poison.— [P. 
T.  Graves,  Lowndes. 

Arsenic  is  cheaper  than  Paris  green,  but  some  think  it  not  so  efficacious.  I  think, 
if  dissolved,  arsenic  will  answer  all  the  purposes  providing  it  is  not  raining  too  much, 
in  which  event  vou  will  have  to  use  it  otherwise,  say,  in  flour  or  lime  or  ashes. — [R. 
W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 

Nothing  that  I  know  of. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

Nothing  that  I  have  ever  used.— [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

Nothing. — [  J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

Some  bave  used  arsenic  dissolved  in  boiling  water  as  cheaper  than  Paris  green. — 
[H.  Tutwiler,  Hale. 


cost 

of  September 

time  and  you  are  comparatively  safe.  But  all  your  neighbors  must  join  you  in  this. 
Yet  much  good  can  be  accomplished  by  Paris  green  if  taken  in  time. — [I.  D.  Dries- 
bach,  Baldwin. 

After  considerable  experience  with  Paris  green,  L  e.,  six  years'  use  of  it,  I  am  dis- 
posed to  think  cotton  does  not  yield  fruit — that  is  fresh  fruit — after  that  poison  is  ap- 
plied to  it.  It  is  too  great  a  stimulant,  and  too  apt  to  be  absorbed  by  the  growing 
plant.  The  present  cost  of  Paris  green  is  20  cents  per  acre.  I  have  used  the  "  Texas 
•worm-destroyer"  with  all  the  advantage  claimed  for  Paris  green,  and  with  none  of  its 
bad  effects.  This  is  an  arsenious  preparation,  the  cost  of  which  is  about  25  to  35  cents 
per  acre. — [  J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

Nothing  has  been  found  superior  to  Paris  green  for  the  destruction  of  the  worm. — 
[A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

Arsenic,  which  is  cheaper  than  Paris  green  because  it  takes  so  much  less. — [J.  R. 
Rogers,  Bullock. 

1  have  no  experience  with  Paris  green,  and  can  say  nothing  of  it  from  personal 
knowledge,  and  certainly  know  of  nothing  better,  unless  it  might  be  found  in  a  gang 
of  a  hundred  or  two  hundred  turkeys  turned  into  a  field  and  confined  to  the  -worm-in- 
fested cotton. — [A.  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Nothing  has  ever  been  used  in  this  county  more  generally  useful  or  applicable  than 
the  Paris  green  mixture  to  destroy  worms,  and  it  is  far  cheaper  than  would  be  any 
plans  to  destroy  the  eggs  or  the  moth.  I  have  several  times  used  the  Paris  green  and 
other  preparations ;  found  Paris  green  cheapest  and  best. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

Paris  green  or  arsenic  is  used  when  any  attempt  is  made  to  destroy  them.— [C.  C. 
Howard,  Autauga. 

Paris  green  has  been  used  to  a  very  limited  extent  here,  and  in  several  instances  it 
has  killed  the  cotton-plant. — [  J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

No.— [R.  F.  Henry,  Pickens. 

Nothing  ;  and  that  is  a  humbug.  If  you  can  poison  the  atmosphere  so  as  to  kill  the 
moth  and  nothing  else,  then  talk  about  poisoning.— [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

There  has  not.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

Paris  green  will  destroy  them  when  all  other  remedies  fail ;  nothing  surer  or  cheaper. 
—[P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

Nothing  more  certain  to  kill  than  Paris  green.  White  arsenic  is  cheaper  and  very 
sure  if  the  weather  is  favorable. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

Nothing  that  I  know  of;  and  Paris  green  is  a  failure  as  far  as  practical  results  are 
concerned. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 


476  REPORT   UPOX    COTTON   INSECTS. 

I  think  the  Texas  worm-destroyer  better. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

Nothing.— [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

Arsenic.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

No. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

Nothing. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Mr.  Donavan  claims  to  be  the  first  who  ever  applied  Paris  green  for  the  destruction 
of  the  cotton-worms.  This  was  in  1871  or  '72,  in  a  separate  field  of  about  one  aero. 
He  applied  the  poison  in  the  month  of  August,  early  in  the  morning  before  the  clew 
was  dried,  distributing  large  quantities  of  it  with  the  hand  over  the  plants  until  he 
was  satisfied  that  every  leaf  was  covered.  The  success  was  complete,  and  one  applica- 
tion of  the  poison  was  sufficient  to  prevent  the  worms  from  becoming  injurious. — [E. 
A.  Schwavz,  Eufaula. 

The  "Texas  anti-worm  prescription  "  is  cheaper  than  Paris  green,  but  it  is  too  weak, 
and  one  and  a  half  measures  to  forty  gallons  of  water  are  required  to  kill  the  worms. 
It  is,  we  suppose,  arsenic  in  a  soluble  state.  It  is  well  known  here  that  arsenic,  if  too 
freely  applied,  will  injure  the  cotton,  either  by  itself  or  in  combination  with  other 
poisonous  substances;  and  the  only  advantage  which  the  Texas  poison  has  is  that  it 
can  be  applied  when  the  dew  is  not  on  the  cotton  ;  and  to  protect  the  farm  both  Roy- 
all's  patent  and  Texas  destroyer  had  better  be  on  hand,  and  plenty  of  it. — [Dr.  John 
Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

No  kind  of  poison  used  here. — [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

Don't  know.     Paris  green  not  used  here. — [Norborne  Young,  Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

Nothing  that  I  have  heard  of. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 
Have  heard  kerosene  oil  much  vaunted. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Paris  green  and  all  such  poisoning  is  a  humbug. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

Never  used. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

We  think  the  lamp  is  cheaper  and  safer. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

No  poisons  have  ever  been  tried  in  this  county. — [D.  P.  Luke,  Berrien. 

Nothing  that  I  have  ever  seen  or  heard  of. — [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

No  experience  in  Paris-green  mixture. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

Neither  Paris  green  nor  any  other  poison  has  ever  been  used  in  Coffee  County. — 
[Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

LOUISIANA. 

Nothing.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

Paris  green  is  the  poison  which  has  been  always  used  here  to  destroy  the  worms,  so 
far  as  my  observation  has  gone.  A  preparation  called  the  "  Texas  cotton- worm  killer," 
or  destroyer,  has  also  been  extensively  advertised,  and,  perhaps,  may  have  been  a  good 
deal  used  in  other  sections,  but  I  have  never  seen  it  tried,  personally.  I  have  seen, 
many  times,  where  the  Paris  green  has  been  used  with  great  success.  The  most  suc- 
cessful plan  was  by  the  solution  of  so  many  pounds  of  poison  to  so  many  gallons  of 
water,  and  then  applied  by  men  riding  on  horses  or  mules  between  the  rows  of  cotton 
and  sprinkling  the  solution  well  on  the  plants  as  they  went.  It  is  a  slow  process,  and 
requires  time  and  patience  to  do  it  well,  but  when  done  as  well  as  it  should  be,  and 
begun  and  repeated  at  the  proper  times  it  destroys  the  worms  utterly  and  completely. 
In  fact,  in  many  places  where  this  mixture  or  the  Texas  poison  have  been  often  used 
and  their  mode  of  application  well  understood,  the  cotton-worm  has  ceased  to  be  the 
dread  and  terror  it  once  was.  There  is  a  plan  of  applying  the  Paris  green  by  mixing 
it  with  flour  in  certain  proportions  and  sifting  it  from  a  box  carried  on  the  end  of  a 
pole,  and  this  carried  by  a  man  who  rides  on  horseback  over  the  fields  and  dusts  the 
preparation  over  the  cotton-plants  within  his  route.  I  never  liked  this  mode  of  ap- 
plication as  well  as  the  first-mentioned. — [D.  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

Nothing  has  been  found  to  destroy  them  but  Paris  green. — [John  A.  Maryman,  East 
Feliciana. 

The  Paris-green  mixture  will  destroy  the  cotton-worm,  but  at  the  same  time  will 
destroy  the  fructification  of  the  cot  con-  plant. — [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

In  mid-day,  when  the  sun  is  very  hot,  if  the  cotton-stalk  is  jarred  by  a  brush  being 

rssed  over  it,  large  quantities  of  the  worm  will  be  dislodged  and  fall  to  the  ground. 
have  seen  them  die  in  five  minutes  when  it  was  very  warm.    Large  quantities  of 
them  could  be  destroyed  by  tying  brush  at  intervals  on  a  rope  that  would  drag  in  be- 
tween the  rows.    Let  it  be  carried  by  two  men  and  brush  out  four  rows  at  a  time. — 
[C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowudes. 

Neither  Paris  green  nor  any  other  poison  has  been  tried  to  any  extent. — [C.  Welch, 
Coviugton. 


APPENDIX   II — ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  477 

The  prejudice  against  poisonous  remedies  is  too  strong  to  get  any  of  them  introduced 
for  experiment. — Dr.  E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

Nothing  that  I  have  heard  of  or  known. — [William  T.  Lewis,  Winston. 

My  prelerence  is  for  the  pan  and  lantern  invented  by  J.  G.  Garrett,  Port  Gibson., 
Miss. ;  cheaper  and  less  dangerous. — [  J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

Perhaps  not.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

My  insect-destroyers  are  more  useful.  If  used  in  time  they  attract  and  catch,  with 
or  without  a  light,  the  caterpillar  and  boll-worm  flies,  and  prevent  the  ravages  of  both 
the  caterpillar  and  boll- worm. — [  J.  G.  G.  Garrett,  Port  Gibson. 

No ;  but  the  Paris  green  is  a  dead  failure. — [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

Nothing.— [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

To  my  knowledge  nothing  has  been  found  more  useful  than  Paris  green  to  destroy 
the  insect  in  question.  I  am  of  opinion,  from  experiments  which  I  have  made,  that 
an  inestimable  benefit  would  accrue  were  an  organized,  general,  and  energetic  battle 
made  on  this  line  against  the  insect  enemies  of  the  cotton-plant.  I  am  sure  it  would 
end  in  their  extermination  if  its  use  could  be  made  general  for  three  years. — [A.  W. 
Hunt,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Arsenious  acid  is  cheaper,  but  tbe  Paris  green  is  the  best  preparation,  to  be  used 
with  Hour  (a  small  portion  powdered  rosin,  25  pounds  of  flour  to  one  of  Paris  green). 
Ashes  can  be  used  in  lieu  of  flour,  or  any  other  article  that  will  act  as  a  vehicle. — [P. 
S.  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

Solution  of  arsenic. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

Nothing.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

Nothing.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Nothing  has  been  brought  into  use  here  cheaper  than  arsenic ;  Paris  green  next. — 
[O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

A  great  many  cheap  poisons 
use  ouly  Paris  green.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

Not  in  this  county.— [P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

Arsenic  in  solution,  mixed  at  the  rate  of  about  a  quarter  pound  to  forty  gallons  of 
water  and  applied  in  the  form  of  a  shower,  either  by  a  fountain  pump  or  similar  con- 
trivance, appears  to  be  the  cheapest ;  but  as  it  has  to  be  applied  three,  four,  or  live 
times,  it  is  very  tedious.  Paris  green  is  the  most  dangerous  to  man. — [  J.  H.  Krancher, 
Austin. 

None.— [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

Arsenic  in  liquid  form  more  generally  useful,  effective,  cheaper,  and  more  easily  ap- 
plied.— [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

I  do  not  think  there  is  anything  cheaper  than  Paris  green  that  is  so  sure  a  remedy. — 
[S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

Yes  ;  the  Texas  cotton-worm  destroyer,  put  up  in  Galveston,  Tex. — [  J.  W.  Jackson, 
Titus. 

Arsenic  in  its  raw  state,  dissolved  in  boiling  water,  is  better  and  cheaper ;  applied 
by  being  thrown  on  the  plant  with  pumps.  I  would  state  that  I  saved  my  crop  in 
1877  by  its  use. — [Natt.  Holman,  Fayette. 


QUESTION  7  7i. — Have  you  Icnfavn  of  any  injurious  effects  following  the  vse  of  this  poison, 
eithei-  to  the  plant,  to  man,  or  to  animals? 

ALABAMA. 

Yes;  to  plant,  man,  and  animals. — [J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

The  dangers  of  Paris  green  are  well  known  here.  Stock  of  all  kinds  will  be  killed 
by  it,  if  suffered  to  eat  the  cotton  poisoned.  Any  sore  or  abrasion  of  the  skin  will 
inflame,  and  if  applied  too  freely  to  the  cotton  it  is  sure  to  parch  the  leaves  and  injure 
the  plant. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

None  to  man  or  beast,  but  some  little  to  cotton  where  the  mixture  was  too  strong; 
one  tablespoonful  of  Paris  green  to  one  gallon  of  water,  cotton  to  be  sprinkled  at  the 
commencement  or  advent  of  a  new  crop  of  worms. — [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

I  have  not.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

I  have  injured  crops  of  cotton  in  this,  that  after  being  poisoned  with  Paris  green  they 
matured  no  more  fruit.  My  laborers  have  been  made  ill  by  using  it  on  cottou.  I  have 
known  cows  and  horses  killed  by  eating  the  cotton  on  which  it  had  been  deposited. — [  J. 
W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 


478  .    REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 

Yes ;  it  will  kill  anything  that  gets  to  the  leaf  and  eats  it ;  it  washes  off  by  rain 
and  is  carried  off  into  the  streams  of  water,  and  some  stock  have  died  from  drinking 
the  water.— [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

It  will  kill  the  leaves  if  applied  too  strong.  Have  known  no  serious  injury  to  man 
or  animal. — [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

It  injures  the  plant. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

Have  heard  of  cows  eating  the  cotton-leaves  after  the  Paris  green  had  been  sprinkled 
upon  it,  and  that  it  killed  some  of  them. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

I  have  known  of  none ;  but  once  I  observed  that  the  applications  of  Paris  green 
seemingly  dwarfed  the  growth  of  the  common  field-pea,  grown  upon  the  same  soil  the 
following  year. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

Yes;  the  plant  frequently  ceases  to  fruit ;  field-hands  have  been  injured  sometimes 
severely,  and  stock  killed. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

Yes ;  two  heavy  an  application  destroys  the  plant,  and  if  not  carefully  handled  in- 
jurious to  man  and  beast. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Halo. 

The  plant  is  injured  by  too  copious  an  application  of  Paris  green.  I  have  known 
no  injuries  from  its  use,  to  man  or  animal. — [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

It  stops  the  plant  from  bearing,  and  if  too  strong  kills  the  plant.  I  have  heard  of 
horses  and  cows  having  been  killed  by  drinking  out  of  vessels  in  which  poison  had 
been  mixed.  With  care  there  is  no  danger  to  man  or  beast. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

If  used  too  freely  arsenic  will  kill  the  plant.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

I  have  never  known  any  injuries  to  man  or  beast,  but  when  applied  too  strong  it 
hurts  or  burns  the  cotton  and  perhaps  prevents  it  making  any  fruit  more  than  to  ma- 
ture what  it  has. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

I  saw  a  field  where  Paris  green  had  been  applied,  and  the  cotton  was  as  lifeless  and 
as  unproductive  as  it  posaibly  would  have  been  if  every  leaf  had  been  eaten  off  by  the 
worm. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

Yes ;  on  all  of  them.— [  J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

I  have  heard  of  local  poisoning, — [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

The  young  bolls  of  cotton  sLow.  the  effects  of  po'ison  where  the  atoms  fall  upon 
them  ;  some  partially  rot.  Arsenic  in  solution  produces  a  caustic  blight  on  the  leaves 
when  not  greatly  reduced.  Some  few  animals  have  been  killed  by  eating  Paris  green 
and  flour  mixed.  Less  damge  has  resulted  than  was  feared. — [P.  T.  Barnes,  Lowudes. 

If  too  much  poison  is  put  on  the  plant  it  will  injure  it ;  say  of  arsenic  1  pound  to 
the  acre  in  30  gallons  of  water  dissolved,  will  kill  the  worms  and  not  injure  the  cotton. 
I  have  known  no  injury  to  man  or  beast  from  the  use  of  it. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowudes. 

If  used  injudiciously  it  will  destroy  the  plant.  Have  seen  the  hands  from  careless- 
ness poisoned  with  it.  Have  known  it  to  kill  stock. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 

I  am  satisfied  that  the  poison  injures  the  cotton-plant ;  that  it  appears  to  close  up 
the  pores  of  the  leaf,  and  the  cotton  stops  fruiting. — [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

None  in  my  experience. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

Injurious  to  plant  when  put  on  too  strong,  and  to  men  and  animals  if  saturated  with 
solution  in  applying.— [J.  H.  Sinifch  and  J.  F.  Calhoun,  Dallas. 

I  have  known  it  to  kill  the  cotton-plant.  I  never  have  known  it  to  injure  animals 
of  any  kind. — [  J.  N.  Gilmore,  Suinter. 

ARKANSAS. 

Have  known  of  the  plant  being  killed.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 
No.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

None  whatever. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 
No.— [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

I  have  heard  it  said  that  it  is  very  injurious  to  cattle.— [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

Not  of  my  own  knowledge.  Some  of  my  neighbors  say  that  it  destroys  the  birds  that 
will  do  as  much  good  in  destroying  the  worm  as  the  Paris  green. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

None.— [T.  Fussell,  Coffee. 

Have  heard  of  injuries  to  the  plant  in  Dougherty  County,  but  none  to  man  or  beast. 
— [D.  P.  Lnke,  Berrien. 

Yes  ;  it  has  killed  some  stock  that  got  in  cotton -fields  where  used.— [William  A.Har- 
ris, Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

Yes ;  if  too  strong  will  kill  the  plant.  If  the  mules  are  galled  or  have  old  sores,  will 
make  them  very  hard  to  heal ;  same  with  the  men  who  handle  it.  If  any  ordinary  care 
is  taken,  no  bad  effects  result  from  the  use  of  it.— [H.  B.  Shaw',  Concordia. 

Have  heard  of  persons  being  injured  by  this  poison,  but,  of  course,  as  it  is  a  poison  it 
should  be  used  with  proper  caution  or  injury  will  happen.  Have  never  heard  of  any 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIECULAR.  479 

injury  to  plants  except  to  the  cotton-plant  itself  when  the  poison  was  put  on  too  strong. 
— [D.  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

I  have  never  known  any  person  or  animal  to  be  injured  by  the  use  of  it,  but  if  made 
too  strong  it  will  kill  the  plant. — [John  A.  Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 

Paris  green',  in  my  experience,  has  always  been  used  with  care,  and  no  injurious  ef- 
fects from  its  use  have  followed.— [Dr.  I.  U.  Ball,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

No ;  it  has  been  used  here  to  a  very  limited  extent  only. — ;[D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson, 

No.— 1C.  Welch,  Coviugton. 

None.— [William  T.  Lewis,  Winston. 

Paris  green  has  never  been  tried  here. — [C.  F.  Sherriod,  Lowndes. 

Have  heard  of  cattle  being  killed  by  eating  poisoned  leaves.  No  Paris  green  used 
in  our  county. — [J.  W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

None.— [John  C.  Russel,  Madison. 

When  used  too  freely  it  kills  the  leaves ;  have  heard  of  no  other  bad  effects. — [W. 
Spillrnan,  Clarke. 

I  have  had  instances  of  cotton  pickers  affected  with  disease  similar  to  "  painters' 
colic,"  but  no  damage  to  animals. — [George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

Never  has  been  used  here. — [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

None,  except  when  carelessly  used  and  inhaled ;  have  seen  the  nostrils,  mouth,  and 
sometimes  the  throat  inflamed  and  even  sore  among  those  who  sprinkled  it  over  the 
plant.— [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

I  know  of  no  injurious  effects  following  the  use  of  Paris  green  to  the  plant,  to  man, 
or  to  animals,  but  do  not  doubt  that  if  incautiously  used  injury  might  result  there- 
from, especially  to  man. — [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

A  gentleman  last  year  tried  Paris  green,  using  it  at  night ;  his  face  was  full  of  the 
powder.  After  returning  home  his  condition  was  such  that  I  told  him  he  was  poi- 
soned, when  the  above  was  admitted ;  there  were  no  serious  results.  Those  assisting 
were  not  affected.  If  too  strong,  it  will  kill  the  plant.— [S.  P.  Clarke,  Waller. 

No.— [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

Have  never  heard  of  any.— [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

I  have  known  injurious  effects  to  follow  the  use  of  poison  on  the  plant,  on  myself. — 
[O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

No.-[P.  S.  Watts,  Hardin. 

Sometimes  destroys  the  plant. — [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

When  Paris  green  is  pure  it  will  not  hurt  the  cotton  ;  some  is  adulterated  with  crude 
arsenic,  which  makes  it  burn  the  cotton.  I  have  known  it  to  make  sores  on  men  from 
carelessness  in  using,  but  would  soon  be  well  again.  Have  known  of  no  stock  being 
injured.— [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

No  injurious  effects  following  the  application  of  arsenious  solutions  to  man  or  ani- 
mal ;  of  Paris  green  several  cases  are  known.  A  strong  solution  of  arsenic  or  Paris 
green  has  frequently  injured  the  plant ;  in  some  instances  the  plants  have  lost  all 
their  leaves  and  fruit. — [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

Death  of  a  few  animals  that  eat  the  cotton  after  it  was  applied. — [Natt  Holman, 
Fayette. 

None,  to  plant  or  man ;  have  heard  of  cattle  getting  into  the  fields  and  being  injured 
and  some  killed  by  eating  the  cotton. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

If  used  too  strong,  injures  the  plant.  Seldom  injures  men  or  animals  externally.— 
[A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

I  have  used  it,  and  never  found  any  injurious  effect  upon  any  thing,  either  man  or 
beast.— [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

No ;  nothing  serious ;  some  slight  poisoning  to  man  and  beast.  The  people  (farmers) 
are  afraid  of  Paris  green,  and  would  rather  see  their  crop  destroyed  than  risk  using 
it.-[J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 


480  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 


QUESTION  7i. — State  what  you  consider  the  best  and  most  effective  method  of  destroying 
them  in  your  section. 

ALABAMA. 

It  is  contended  by  some  farmers  here  that  if  the  cotton  could  be  topped  just  at  the 
time  the  eggs  were  first  deposited  it  would  more  effectually  destroy  them  than  the 
application  of  any  medicated  substances.  The  moth  always  deposits  its  eggs  in  the 
tender  buds  of  the  cotton  first. — [J.  N.  Gilmore,  Sumter. 

Cannot  answer,  as  everything  has  failed  that  has  been  tried  in  this  section.  I  con- 
sider nothing  that  has  been  used  throughout  this  section  has  resulted  in  good  in  either 
saving  the  crop  or  destroying  the  pest. — [John  D.  Johnston,  Sumter. 

Paris  green  carefully  applied.— [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

ROYALL'S  RECEIPT. — Formula :  18  pounds  flour,  1  pound  Paris  green,  1  pound  pul- 
verized gum  arabic,  2  pounds  rosin;  cost  of  material,  §1.25  per  acre;  application,  50 
cents  per  acre. — [  J.  A.  Callaway,  Montgomery. 

Paris  green  and  arsenic. — [H.  A.  Stolenwerck,  Perry. 

Paris  green  diluted  with  water. — [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

The  best  and  most  effective  means  to  destroy  the  worm  has  been  the  use  of  Paris 
green,  applied  in  a  solution  of  water,  and  sprinkled  or  thrown  on  the  plant  by  a  small 
brush  or  broom.  It  is  said  now  that  the  Texas  preparation  is  the  best  and  most  eco- 
nomical way  to  use  Paris  green. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

Arsenic  and  Paris  green.  One  man  saved  seven  acres  by  picking  off  and  killing  when 
they  first  made  their  appearance.  He  went  over  the  ground  a  number  of  times. — [  J. 
R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

Should  use  arsenic,  as  being  much  cheaper.— [C.  C.  Howard,  Autauga. 

The  best  method  of  destroying  is  Paris  green.  Say  1  pound  of  Paris  green  to  30  or 
40  gallons  of  water,  in  which  you  mix  5  or  more  pounds  of  flour;  with  this  sprinkle  the 
cotton.  But  I  would  prefer  arsenic,  it  being  so  much  cheaper,  and  will  ordinarily  an- 
swer all  the  purposes. — [R.  W.  Russell,  Lowndes. 


Paris  green,  properly  applied. — [R.  S.  Williams,  Montgomery. 
Paris  green. — [Kuox,  Miuge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 


We  use  nothing.— [I.  F.  Culver,  Bullock. 

I  consider  every  method  resorted  to  so  far  as  a  failure.  Paris  green  was  thought  to 
be  an  effectual  remedy,  but  those  who  were  credulous  enough  to  try  it  have  abandoned 
the  use  of  it  as  wholly  impracticable. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

The  application  of  Paris  green  mixed  with  flour  and  rosin. — [A.  D.  Ed\vards, 
Macon. 

Sprinkling  poisoned  water  or  flour  on  the  plant. — [  J.  W.  DuBose,  Montgomery. 

Nothing  has  yet  been  discovered  that  is  worth  a  cent. — [J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

Paris  green  and  arsenic  mixed  with  water,  and  sprinkled  over  the  field  regularly, 
while  the  worms  are  at  work. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

Paris  green  has  been  used  more  effectually  in  this  section.  One  pound  of  Paris 
green  or  arsenic  to  two  hundred  and  fifty  or  three  hundred  gallons  of  water,  and  dis- 
tributed with  a  watering-pot.— [R.  H.  Powell,  Bullock. 

The  Texas  remedy. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

Paris  green  in  solution  or  powder. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autanga. 

Paris  green  is  the  only  effective  method  of  destroying  them  in  this  country,  and 
most  or  nearly  all  farmers  have  abandoned  Paris  green  and  concluded  to  let  the  worm 
do  its  work  unmolested. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

I  think  the  best  mode  to  protect  your  crop  from  their  ravages  is  to  catch  the  moth 
with  molasses.  This  can  be  done  by  placing  a  tin  plate  to  every  half  acre  of  cotton, 
and  covering  the  bottom  of  the  plate  with  molasses.  The  plate  should  be  secured  to 
a  stake,  and.-  placed  above  the  top  of  the  cotton.  This  should  be  done  about  the  1st 
of  July;  molasses  renewed  every  other  day.  Every  female  moth  produces  about 
four  hundred  worms.  Destroy  the  first  and  second  broods  of  moths,  and  your  chances 
for  a  good  crop  are  increased  a  hundred  fold.  Paris  green  the  next  best,  but  either 
will  fail  unless  the  practice  is  general. — [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

It  is  believed  early  and  fast  cultivation  is  one  of  the  best  remedies  for  insect  inju- 
ries, and  also  to  keep  all  Ihe  weeds  and  grass  out,  and  plant  to  the  middle  or  last  of 
July. — [George  W.  Thagard,  Crenshaw. 

ARKANSAS. 

I  think  fires  would  be  the  most  effective. — [T.  S.  Edwards,  Macon. 

Top  the  cotton  and  kill  all  the  worms  possible  ;  then  gather  all  trash,  stalks,  &c., 
and  burn  the  same  each  year.  Hand-killing  is  the  only  effective  method  I  know  of.— 
[E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

Paris  green  1  pound,  flonr  50  pounds,  sprinkled  early  while  the  dew  is  on  the  cotton 
and  applied  as  soon  as  the  worms  appear  in  force.  Three  weeks  ago  I  saved  a  small 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  481 

lot  of  late  cotton  in  this  way.  The  worms  have  just  appeared  again,  and  1  could  drive 
them  off  again  (or  rather  kill  them),  but  think  the  lot  will  be  benefited  by  allowing 
them  to  strip  the  foliage,  which  is  so  dense  that  all  the  lower  fruit  is  rotting.— [J. 
Bradford,  Leon. 

Hogs  turned  into  the  cotton-fields  in  August  will  be  the  cheapest  and  best  method 
of  destroying  them. — [ J.  M.  McGehee,  Santa  Rosa. 

Destruction  of  all  undergrowth  shrubbery. — [R.  Gamble,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

I  thiuk  that  topping  the  cotton  the  last  of  July  or  first  of  August,  and  taking  the 
tops  so  cut  off  in  sacks  or  baskets  out  of  the  field,  especially  after  a  spell  of  cloudy 
weather,  as  the  eggs  are  deposited  in  the  top  buds,  where  the  young  worm  can  have 
the  tender  foliage  to  feed  on.— [Timothy  Fussell,  Coffee. 

Have  found  nothing  better  than  Paris  green,  or  a  good  large  flock  of  tame  turkeys. — 
[William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

Lamps  or  bonfires  built  on  stumps  or  scaffolds  in  the  cotton-field  just  as  dusk  sots  in. — 
[M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

I  am  one  of  those  that  view  it  as  an  impossibility. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

I  know  of  no  possible  way  of  destroying  them. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

LOUISIANA. 

Paris  green. — [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

Paris  green  is  the  best  and  most  effective  method  of  destroying  them. — [John  A. 
Maryman,  East  Feliciana. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

One  pound  of  Paris  green,  worth  about  25  cents,  20  pounds  of  flour  $1,  applied  three 
times,  making  a  total  of  §3.75  per  acre. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Fires,  vessels  of  poisoned  sirups,  and  Paris  green.  The  last  is  mixed,  1  pound  with 
30  pounds  of  wheat  flour,  and  sprinkled  on  the  plant  while  the  leaves  are  wet  with 
dew.  If  dried  before  rain  falls,  it  proves  effectual ;  if  not,  the  poison  is  worth  little. — 
[D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

Light  and  some  sticky  substance  that  will  retain  them  when  caught.— [J.  W.  Burch, 
Jefferson. 

Let  it  be  ascertained  when,  where,  and  how  this  insect  hibernates ;  then  the  most 
effective  method  for  their  destruction  ought  to  be  found. — [John  C.  Russell,  Madison. 

No  means  of  forming  an  opinion.— [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

Quit  raising  cotton. — [W.  Spillman,  Clarke. 

Lights  in  the  cotton-fields  on  stumps  and  boards  elevated  to  the  top  of  the  cotton. — 
[George  V.  Webb,  Amite. 

TENNESSEE. 

Paris  green  I  regard  most  successful  in  destroying  the  insect  in  question  if  generally 
used.  Lighted  fires  of  next  importance  if  generally  used,  though,  as  I  have  said,  harm 
results  from  its  partial  use.  Of  next  importance  I  regard  the  natural  enemies  of  the 
insect.  Except  for  these  enemies  the  growing  of  cotton  would  long  since  have  been 
abandoned.  The  value  of  their  assistance  cannot  be  overestimated. — [A.  W.  Hunt, 
M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

If  the  weather  should  prove  to  be  dry  after  the  worms  make  their  appearance,  the 
Paris  green  in  a  solution  is  best ;  but  if  it  continues  wet,  then  the  powder  is  best. 
This  is  my  experience. — [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

Paris  green,  1  pound  to  25  pounds  of  flour,  and  a  small  portion  of  rosin.  The  rains 
will  wash  off  the  poison,  and  it  will  have  to  be  applied  after  each  beating  rain  ;  it 
should  be  used  wherever  the  worms  are  first  seen.  Destroy  if  possible  this  first  crop. — 
[P.  S.  Clarke,  Waller. 

Solution  of  arsenic. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Cotnal. 

Any  preparation  of  arsenic  applied  in  solution.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

There  has  been  no  trial  of  any  method. — [W.  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

A  solution  of  arsenic  and  water  is  considered  equal  to  Paris  green,  if  properly  ap- 
plied, and  by  far  the  most  expeditious. — [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

The  best  and  most  effective  mode  is  doubtless  the  application  of  Paris  green  and 
flour — 1  pound  of  Paris  green  to  20  or  30  pounds  of  flour.  It  is  also  the  most  expen- 
sive, but  at  the  same  time  one  application  is  generally  sufficient.  People,  however, 
seem  to  discard  the  extensive  use  of  poisons,  and  appear  inclined  to  pay  more  atten- 
tion to  the  destruction  of  the  moth. — [J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

I  poison  my  cotton  altogether  with  machinery  drawn  by  two  horses.  The  machine 
consists  of  the  fore  part  of  a  wagon,  with  a  platform  made  sufficient  to  hold  a  tank 

31  c  i 


482  EEPOET    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

of  water,  containing  120  gallons  and  4  pounds  of  Paris  green.  This  will  poison  three 
acres.  In  this  tank  is  placed  a  3-inch  force-pump  for  forcing  the  spray  continuously  ; 
on  the  pump  place  4  feet  of  1-inch  hose,  with  nozzle  If-  inches  in  diameter,  with  50 
small  holes  in  it.  One  man  drives  and  pumps,  and  another  stands  on  rear  of  platform 
and  guides  the  hose  back  and  forth  (in  a  semicircle)  over  the  cotton,  carrying  seven 
rows  in  large  cotton  and  nine  rows  in  small  cotton  about  as  fast  as  the  horses  can  walk. 
By  having^the  water  hauled  to  keep  the  machine  at  work  all  day,  between  20  and  30 
acres  can  be  poisoned.  Two  men,  without  any  assistance,  can  poison  12  or  15  acres  per 
day.  Should  the  weather  be  showery  I  use  9  pounds  flour  to  the  120  gallons  of  water, 
made  into  starch.  This  holds  the  Paris  green  till  frost  if  there  are  not  too  many  heavy 
rains.  I  use  no  adhesive  substance  if  the  weather  is  dry. — [W.  T.  Hill,  Walker. 

Paris  greeu  is  considered  best  by  those  who  have  tried  it. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

All  attempts,  so  far,  I  regard  as  doubtful  experiments,  as  no  general  favorable  re- 
sults have  as  yet  been  demonstrated. — [A.  Underwood,  Brazoria. 

The  cotton  caterpillar  makes  its  appearance  in  this  part  of  the  country  in  July  or 
August ;  when  it  appears  in  July  it  destroys  three-fourths  of  the  crop,  but  when  it 
comes  in  August  it  only  cuts  the  crop  short  about  one-third.  This  was  the  case  before 
the  farmers  began  to  use  poison  ;  but  now  they  have  a  correct  compound  by  the  use 
of  which  they  can  destroy  the  caterpillar  without  danger  to  themselves  or  their  stock, 
i.  e.,  1  ounce  of  arsenic,  2  gallons  of  molasses  to  40  gallons  of  water  for  one  acre  of. 
cotton,  the  molasses  only  being  used  to  make  the  poison  adhere  to  the  leaves.  The 
plan  of  poisoning  was  not  generally  adopted  here  for  some  time,  from  the  fact  that 
the  colored  people  were  afraid  of  it,  but  when  they  witnessed  the  good  effect  of  its 
use  among  the  white  people  they  tried  it,  and  there  can  now  be  found  in  all  their 
cabins  the  hand-sprinkler  and  poison  ready  for  use.  In  proof  of  the  good  effect  of  the 
poison,  I  will  mention  one  instance.  One  farmer  cultivated  40  acres,  and  sent  to  mar- 
ket 22  bales  averaging  500  pounds  lint  cotton  per  bale.  He  had  used  the  poison  in 
the  way  mentioned ;  his  neighbor  did  not  use  poisons,  and  from  68  acres  only  raised  6 
bales,  and  part  of  that  was  "  frost"  cotton.  The  land  was  cultivated  in  the  same  way, 
and  the  seed  was  the  same. — [Samuel  H.  Waldie,  Belmont. 

Destroy  the  first  crop  of  chrysalides  and  they  will  do  you  no  serious  damage. — [ J. 
W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

By  using  poison  pretty  freely.  Some  use  Paris  green  and  some  arsenic. — [Natt. 
Holman,  Fayette. 


QUESTION  7j. — State  the  cost  per  acre  of  protecting  a  crop  1)y  the  best  means  employed. 

ALABAMA. 

With  molasses,  about  50  cents  per  acre;  with  Paris  green,  from  50  cents  to  $2  per 
acre. — [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

With  Paris  green,  about  $2  per  acre.— [H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

As  much  or  more  than  the  crop  is  worth. — [M.  W.  Hand,  Greene. 

One  dollar  per  acre. — [Knox,  Minge,  and  Evans,  Hale. 

Perhaps  $3  per  acre  is  about  the  average  cost. — [D.  Lee,  Lowndes. 

Five  dollars  per  acre. — [James  M.  Harrington,  Monroe. 

Not  less  than  $1  per  acre,  and  this  cannot  always  be  done.  If  the  remedy  is  applied 
and  it  rains  before  it  dries  on  the  plant,  the  labor  is  lost,  and  should  it  rain  for  several 
days,  it  will  be  too  late  to  apply  the  remedy  again ;  then  the  crop  is  gone. — [II.  Haw- 
kins, Barbour. 

From  $1  to  $2.  Often  more  injury  is  done  than  good  by  the  use  of  arsenic  and  Paris 
green. — [J.  R.  Rogers,  Bullock. 

Varies  with  cost  of  Paris  green  from  $1  to  $2  per  acre.  I  think  it  impossible  to  apply 
it  so  as  to  kill  the  worms  and  not  injure  to  some  extent  the  plants.— [R.  S.  Williams, 
Montgomery. 

To  poison  with  Paris  green  it  will  cost  from  35  to  50  cents  per  acre ;  with  arsenic, 
not  more  than  ten  cents  per  acre.  This  is  for  each  application.  Sometimes  we  have 
to  apply  two  or  three  times,  depending  on  showers. — [  R.  W.  Russell,  Lowudes.  ' 

The  cost  of  Paris  green  is  $1.25  per  acre. — [Dr.  John  Peurifoy,  Montgomery. 

From  25  to  50  cents  per  acre. — [C.  M.  Howard,  Autauga. 

The  cost  of  the  mixture  (Paris  green,  Hour,  and  rosin)  about  $2.50  per  acre.— [A. 
D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

Paris  green  undoubtedly  the  best  and  also  a  sure  remedy.  Two  pounds  per  acre  cost 
ftl,  and  50  cents  for  application,  making  cost  per  acre  $1.50.  This  in  ordinary  cotton, 
at  night,  very  rough  weed,  would,  of  course,  take  more  water  and  longer  to  sprinkle 
it  over.  Tbo  above  is  the  amount  applied  by  Dr.  R.  A.  Lee,  and  which  effectively  de- 
stroyed all  the  worms. — [P.  D.  Bowles,  Conecuh. 

Generally  speaking,  the  poisons  for  an  acre  will  cost  (two  or  three  applications  allowed) 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  483 

about  75  cents.  The  labor  and  the  flour  or  other  materials  are  also  additional. — [  J.  W. 
Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 

From  20  cents  to  $1 ;  much  cheaper  in  solution. — [H.  A.  Stollenwerck,  Perry. 

No  such  thing  as  protection.  This  Paris  green  is  costly,  dangerous,  and  worthless. — 
[J.  C.  Matthews,  Dale. 

The  cost  would  be  very  small  for  securing  logs  to  make  fires ;  in  fact  so  little  as  to 
be  almost  nominal.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

Not  more  than  $5  per  acre.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

From  §1  to  $1.50  per  acre. — [John  Bradford,  Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

I  have  never  tried  it,  as  I  have  never  been  visited  by  the  worms  but  once  (in  183fi), 
and  then  too  late  to  have  any  damage  done.  It  is  my  opinion,  though,  that  it  could 
be  used  at  a  cost  of  10  cents  per  acre. — [M.  Kemp,  Marion. 

More  than  the  crop  is  worth. — [S.  P.  Odorn,  Dooly. 

Can't  say  ;  arsenic  is  cheap  ;  not  a  great  amount :  but  of  so  little  moment  never  tried 
to  know.— [William  A.  Harris,  Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

About  $4.50  per  acre.— [H.  B.  Shaw,  Concordia. 

I  cannot  state  the  cost  of  the  poison  by  wholesale  and  the  rate  required  per  acre  ; 
there  are  large  drug-houses  in  New  Orleans  which  keep  and  advertise  all  these  articles 
with  prices  per  quantity  and  of  material  per  acre. — [D.  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The  cost  is  trifling :  one  post,  six  feet,  3  cents  ;  one  pan,  50  cents;  one  lantern,  25 
cents ;  one  quart  of  molasses,  10  cents  ;  one  pound  star  candles,  15  cents ;  total,  $1.03. 
The  articles  at  wholesale  at  half  rates.  The  poorest  fermenting  molasses,  at  18  cents 
per  gallon,  is  the  best.  An  acre  can  be  protected  for  75  cents. — [ J.  W.  Burch,  Jeffer- 
son. 

No  means  of  forming  an  opinion. — [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

Probably  $3.— [D.  L.  Phares,  Wilkinson. 

It  will  cost  but  little  to  use  the  lights,  and  that  is  the  only  protection  I  believe  there 
is,  and  that  is  only  partial. — [George  V.  Webb,  Aniite. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA 

Cost,  $3.75  per  acre. — [James  W.  Grace,  Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

Cost  per  acre  of  protecting  a  crop  of  cotton  by  the  use  of  Paris  green  by  any  of  the 
present  imperfect  means  of  application,  $10.  Of  course  this  might  be  reduced  by  bet- 
ter methods  of  application  to  at  least  $3.  Cost  of  the  next  best  method  if  generally 
used,  lighted  fires,  $7  per  acre  or  even  a  little  less.— [A.  W.  Hunt,  M.  D.,  Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Not  less  than  $5.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

Suppose  the  cost  per  acre  to  protect  against  worms  would  be  $1  to  $1.50,  it  would  have 
to  be  gone  over  two  or  three  times. — [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

About  $1  per  acre.— [P.  S.  Clark,  Waller. 

Cost  25  cents  per  acre. — [R.  Wipprecht,  Comal. 

The  price  varies  of  course  with  the  market  price  of  material,  flour  and  Paris  green 
being  cheaper  the  present  year.  The  cost  changes  also  in  proportion  to  the  sizex>f  the 
plant ;  on  a  small  or  low  growth  the  cost  is  less.  On  an  average  30  pounds  of  flour 
and  1  or  1£  pounds  of  Paris  green  is  sufficient  for  an  acre,  which  at  the  present  time 
would  amount  to  $1.25  to  $1.50,  besides  the  cost  of  applying  the  same  at  about  10  cents 
per  acre.— [  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 

The  cost  other  than  labor,  with  arsenic,  is  very  little,  say  4  cents  an  acre  for  each 
application.  The  poison  is  sometimes  applied  from  three  to  eight  times.  Some  con- 
tend that  in  this  way  they  know  it  to  prove  a  perfect  success. — [A.  Underwood,  Bra- 
zoria. 

Paris  green  in  solution  will  cost  from  $1  to  $1.50  per  acre ;  in  a  powder  will  cost  from 
$1.50  to  $2  per  acre.  A  good  force-pump  is  best  for  the  solution,  and  a  very  fine  wire  or 
brass  sifter  for  the  powder  is  what  I  have  used,  and  find  them  very  effectual.  The 
sifter  must  be  finer  than  the  finest  flour-sifter. — [S.  Harbert,  Colorado. 

The  preparation  of  arsenic  above  referred  to  can  be  furnished  to  farmers  at  a  cost  of 
25  cents  per  acre. — [J.  W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

If  the  lamp  and  pan  project  works,  which  in  my  opinion  is  the  best,  being  less  labor, 
less  dangerous,  and  at  a  cost  of  not  more  than  15  cents  per  acre.— [Natt  Holman,  Fay- 
ette. 


484  EEPORT    UPON   COTTOX   INSECTS. 


OTHER    INSECTS. 

ALABAMA. 

From  1825  to  1832  the  cotton  crop  was  cut  off  very  much  by  an  infection  called 
"  the  rot."  The  bolls  which  were  not  matured  became  diseased  and  sour  and  were 
quite  offensive.  The  cause  was  unknown.  Since  1832  and  1833  there  has  been  very 
little  complaint  of  that  infection.  From  1835  to  1853  or  1854,  the  lice  were  a  pest  to 
the  young  plants  in  May  and  June.  They  were  the  worst  on  light  lands.  If  the  plants 
were  thin  the  lice  would  badly  injure  the  stand.  There  were  no  known  means  of  de- 
stroying them.  The  best  plan  was  to  let  the  grass  grow  with  the  cotton  in  the  drill 
until  hot  weather,  when  they  would  soon  disappear.  The  boll-worm  has,  I  doubt  not, 
destroyed  more  cotton  in  Alabama  than  the  Aletia  argillaccci.  It  is  the  offspring  of 
a  moth.  There  are  three  kinds.  The  most  numerous  is  of  a  dirty,  yellowish  color,  and 
has  an  owl-shaped  head.  It  deposits  its  egg  or  eggs  on  the  upper  buds  of  the  plants. 
The  larvae  are  very  small  at  first.  They  commence  in  the  small  forms  first  and  bite  them 
a  little.  The  sign  is  not  larger  than  the  dot  of  an  i  in  small  type  ;  but  it  will  destroy 
the  form,  which  dies  within  five  or  six  days.  The  bite  or  sting  is  poisonous  to  the 
form  or  young  boll.  I  have  pierced  the  form  with  pins  more  deeply,  and  it  did  not 
hurt  it  at  all.  As  the  worm  grows  it  eats  into  the  young  bolls,  and  almost  eats  out  the 
inside.  It  never  cats  the  leaves.  When  its  task  is  almost  done  it  bores  into  a  boll 
nearly  matured,  scoops  a  bed  and  changes  to  a  chrysalis.  It  never  spins. — [D.  Lee, 
Lowcdes. 

We  have  an  insect,  which  we  denominate  "  rust,"  that  I  regard  equally  and  I  may 
say  more  destructive  to  cotton  than  the  caterpillar.  I  have  no  doubt  but  our  igno- 
rance has  given  it  the  wrong  name.  For  a  few  years  back  (some  years  worse  than 
others)  it  has  infested  the  crop,  and  it  is  very  destructive  when  moist.  It  seems  to 
cause  the  growth  to  cease,  and  then  the  stalk  and  leaves  in  some  instances  entirely 
disappear  from  the  ground,  save  possibly  a  little  of  the  main  stem,  and  this  after  the 
cotton  is  full  of  squares  and  small  bolls,  if  not  thus  disposed  of,  the  leaves  seem 
deady  bolls  disappear  unless  matured,  in  which  case  they  will  prematurely  open,  and 
posssibly  such  stalks  will  have  remaining  life  enough  to  put  out,  and,  if  not  too  late, 
mature  more  or  less  bolls.  To  all  appearances  this  insect  is  what  we  have  been  in  the 
Labit  of  calling  "lice"  on  cotton  when  the  plant  is  about  to  be  put  to  a  stand;  but  at 
the  stage  of  attack  here  the  leaves  are,  of  course,  grown,  and  the  lice,  or  whatever  it 
be,  are  as  thick  as  any  one  could  conceive,  or  as  thick  as  lice  ever  were  seen  on  the 
small  plant  in  the  spring.  When  in  this  condition  it  is  easily  observable  by  the  com- 
plexion of  the  leaf,  which  becomes  darker-colored  and  has  a  deposit  on  the  top  re- 
sembling what  we  call  honey-dew  on  forest  flowers.  When  a  field  gets  iu  this  condi- 
tion it  is  ruined.  The  caterpillar  would  be  twice'welcomed  over  it.  There  is  but 
little  known  of  it.  I  think,  however,  dry  seasons  are  more  conducive  to  its  spread, 
and  when  the  lice  are  found  by  the  hundreds  on  one  leaf ;  heavy  rains  seem  to  relieve 
the  cotton  some. — [Andrew  Jay,  Conecuh. 

I  would  mention  the  "  boll-  icorm"  which  bores  into  the  boll  and  destroys  each  lobe 
pierced,  and  many  think  the  boll-worm  is  more  destructive  upon  an  average  than  the 
caterpillar,  for  the  reason  that  it  attacks  the  cotton  more  or  less  every  year.  I  have 
counted  frequently  as  many  on  some  stalks  as  '25  bolls  destroyed  by  the  boll-worm. 
In  1847  there  was  no  caterpillar;  but  the  boll-worm,  from  written  memoranda  fur- 
nished me  by  Hon.  A.  C.  Mitchell,  of  Glenville.  Ala.  (this  county),  very  nearly  destroyed 
the  crops,  being  equally  as  destructive  as  the  caterpillar  the  previous  year.  The 
caterpillar  and  the  boll- worm  are  the  great  enemies  of  cotton.  To  hasten  the  ma- 
turity of  the  crop,  hoping  to  have  as  much  fruit  matured  as  possible  before  the  cater- 
pillar attacks  the  cotton  crop,  has  been  one  of  the  great  incentives  to  the  use  of 
commercial  fertilizers. — [H.  Hawkins,  Barbour. 

In  1875  there  was  an  insect  made  its  appearance  on  the  cotton  crops  in  this  locality, 
piercing  the  very  smallest  squares  and  destroying  them.  In  1870  it  caused  the  failure 
of  the  crop ;  iu  1877  they  did  no  damage ;  in  1878  they  have  damaged  the  crop,  in  our 
opinion,  more  than  the  caterpillar.  The  first  year  or  two  that  it  made  its  appearance 
it  was  confined  to  a  certain  character  of  laud,  but  in  1*78  it  was  general.  A  good  many 
planters  in  this  locality  dread  it  as  much  as  they  do  the  caterpillar. — [Knox,  Minge, 
and  Evans,  Hale. 

The  boll-worm  does  also  great  injury.  The  same  means  that  will  destroy  the  moth 
of  the  caterpillar  will,  I  think,  destroy  the  moth  of  the  boll-worm. — [H.  A.  Stolen- 
werck,  Perry. 

The  lice  in  the  spring  frequently  retard  the  growth  of  the  cotton,  and  sometimes 
injure  or  destroy  the  stand.  These  and  the  boll- worm,  which  is  frequently  very  in- 
jurious, are  the  only  insects  in  addition  to  the  cotton  caterpillar  from  which  the  crop 
suffers.— [A.  D.  Edwards,  Macon. 

The  boll- worm  destroys  the  grown  or  half-grown  bolls,  but  does  not  feed  on  the  foli- 
age or  the  stalk. — [J.  W.  Du  Bose,  Montgomery. 


APPENDIX    II — ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  485 

There  is  a  small  worm  that  generally  comes  in  advance  of  the  regular  caterpillar, 
that  bores  into  the  forms  before  the  bloom  comes  out,  and  it  has  been  my  opinion  that 
the  damage  caused  by  these  is  as  heavy  as  auy  caused  by  the  caterpillar.  The  said 
•worms  are  called  by  some  farmers  the  pierce- worm  or  boll-worm,  as  they  seem  to  attack 
the  bolls  while  young,  causing  them  to  fall  off.  I  have  observed  as  many  as  one-half 
dozen  squares  or  forms  on  one  stalk  that  had  fallen  off  from  attacks  of  these  worms. — 
[H.  C.  Brown,  Wilcox. 

I  will  here  remark  that  there  are  several  kinds  of  moths  which  wrap  up  in  the  cot- 
ton-leaf, and  the  chrysalis  looks  not  unlike  the  chrysalis  of  the  genuine  cotton  eater,  or 
Aletla  arglllacea,  but  ha  is  ''another  fellow"  entirely,  and  of  different  habits  and  ap- 
pearance; some  of  them  white  and  black  spotted  and  various  colors.  But  one  kind  of 
raoth  produced  the  genuine  cotton  dragon,  and  the  cotton  caterpillar  (Aletia  argillacea) 
and  boll-worm  are  the  only  insects  (lice  excepted)  which  are  destructive  to  the  cotton- 
plant  in  this  vicinity  or  the  Southern  States. — [I.  D.  Driesbach,  Baldwin. 

Wet  weather  seems  favorable  to  the  boll-worm,  which  bores  into  the  boll,  generally 
does  most  damage  on  damp,  rich  land,  and  bores  the  boll  while  young  and  tender. 
Bnd-worms  injure  cotton  while  very  young,  in  cool,  wet  weather,  generally  last  of 
April  and  through  May.  Lice  come  on  cotton  in  June  and  first  of  July  ;  grasshoppers 
generally  in  April  and  May. — [George  W.  Thagard,  Crenshaw. 

I  believe  the  boll-worm  has  done  a  great  deal  more  damage  in  the  aggregate  than 
the  cotton-worm.  The  latter  stripped  my  cotton  of  foliage  about  the  1st  of  October 
this  year,  and  I  think  without  any  damage.  If  the  cotton  was  very  rank,  the  leaves 
eaten  off'  at  that  time  would  increase  the  maturing  and  opening. — [C.  C.  Howard, 
Autauga. 

ARKANSAS. 

Cotton  has  been  remarkably  healthy,  and  I  have  not  seen  or  heard  of  a  "  boll- 
worm"  at  any  time  in  the  county,  nor  any  other  worm  or  insect  injuring  the  crop,  ex- 
cept a  few  crops  occasionally  injured  in  the  spring  by  "  cotton-lice."  It  is  not  common 
for  boll-worms  to  be  found  this  far  north.  South  of  34°  is  the  section  where  they  are 
found,  and  32°  and  33°  is  their  home  ;  consequently  I  have  no  report  to  make  in  regard 
to  them,  as  the  last  I  saw  was  over  twenty  years  ago  in  Middle  Georgia. — [T.  W. 
Cochran,  Fulton. 

We  sometimes  have  foliage  of  the  plant  and  the  shuck  from  around  the  boll  eaten 
off  by  a  kind  of  caterpillar  or  grass-worm.  When  it  preys  upon  the  smaller  growth  (on 
poor  land)  it  may  injure  it  to  some  extent ;  but  it  is  an  advantage  to  the  larger  or  more 
luxuriant  plants,  giving  better  air  and  sun  to  the  boll,  thus  insuring  better  maturity 
and  earlier  opening. — [Alfred  A.  Turner,  Bradley. 

The  other  insect  most  destructive  to  cotton  is  the  boll- worm,  and  I  have  as  yet  not 
been  able  to  make  any  observations  upon  it  that  are  satisfactory  or  learn  from 
others  anything  reliable.  The  boll-worms  appear  every  year.  The  moth  or  fly  de- 
posits an  egg  inside  the  young  boll  by  means  of  an  ovipositor.  The  larva  destroys  the 
boll  which  falls  off.  Parties  tell  me  of  different  kinds  of  insects ;  some  speak  of  a  moth 
and  some  of  a  fly.  I  am  inclined  to  think  there  are  two  insects,  a  fly  besides  the  reg- 
ular boll-worm  moth.— [E.  T.  Dale,  Miller. 

The  boll  worm  is  the  only  insect  that  has  injured  the  cotton  in  this  county.  I  am, 
therefore,  not  prepared  to  give  any  information  about  any  other  insect.  And  but  for 
the  serious  damage  this  year  to  crops,  no  one  could  have  noticed  the  boll-worm ;  but  if 
we  should  have  a  very  severe  winter  and  a  late  cold  spring,  with  no  south  winds,  it  may 
be  several  years  before  we  are  troubled  with,  them  again.— [T.  S.  Edwards,  Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

The  cotton-plant  has  other  enemies  in  Florida.  Among  them  is  the  red  bug.  Some- 
times this  bug  is  very  injurious.  It  multiplies  very  rapidly,  will  live  through  the  win- 
ter, unless  the  cold  is  very  severe,  and  endure  until  the  cotton  is  ready  for  it,  that  is, 
when  the  bolls  are  matured  and  commence  to  open.  It  subsists  by  sucking  the  seed. 
This  action  stains  and  otherwise  damages  the  lint.  This  bug  is  more  destructive  in 
new  land,  and  has  not  troubled  this  section  seriously  within  ten  or  twelve  years.  Then 
there  is  what  is  called  the  green  bug.  This  insect  does  its  mischief  by  Mucking  the  limbs 
and  branches  of  the  plant,  which  causes  them  to  die  or  wither.  There  is  also  the  black 
buy,  which  sucks  the  bolls  before  they  are  opened,  and  damages  the  cotton  somewhat 
like  the  red  bug.  The  red  bug  and  black  bug  will  also  suck  oranges  and  ruin  them. 
Last  season  I  noticed  them  covered  with  this  black  bug.  The  oranges  would  fall  and 
on  examination  were  found  without  juice  and  worthless.  I  have  seen  neither  of  the 
above-mentioned  insects  this  season. — [F.  M.  Meekin,  Alachua. 

The  ordinary  cut-worm  in.  the  spring,  and  of  late  years  a  large  hairy  worm,  injure 
our  stands  of  cotton.  Grasshoppers,  too,  are  quite  a  pest  sometimes. — [John  Bradford, 
Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

There  is  nothing  that  is  so  destructive  as  the  cotton- worm.  There  are  other  insects 
that  attack  cotton  in  early  spring.  1st,  a  worm  called  the  cut-worm,  that  cuts  it  off 


486  EEPORT    UPON    COTTON    INSECTS. 

when  it  is  first  up,  which  destroys  the  plant  entirely.  I  have  known  fields  to  have  to 
be  plowed  up  and  planted  over,  as  those  worms  had  destroyed  it  after  a  good  stand  was 
up.  They  are  not  apt  to  last  many  weeks  before  they  pass  to  something  else.  They 
are  worst  in  cold,  wet  springs.  The  cut-worm  hides  under  about  an  inch  of  the  loose 
earth  on  the  surface  of  the  ground  during  the  day,  and  only  works  at  night.  2d,  we 
have  a  yellow  insect  called  a  cricket  that  attacks  cotton.  Some  springs,  generally  in 
the  month  of  May,  they  will  climb  up  the  plant  and  cut  1  to  3  inches  of  the  top,  caus- 
ing the  plant  to  become  scrubby  and  flat.  These  crickets  burrow  in  the  ground  to  the 
depth  of  10  to  15  inches  and  raise  their  young  at  the  bottom  of  their  burrows  ;  one 
will  have  20  or  30  young,  and  they  carry  parts  of  the  tender  cotton  into  their  burrows 
for  their  young  to  feed  on  until  they  are  able  to  gain  their  own  livelihood. — [Timothy 
Fussell,  Coffee. 

I  have  never  known  any  very  great  damage  done  to  the  cotton  crop  in  this  section 
by  any  insects  until  two  years  ago,  when  some  crops  were  destroyed  by  the  grasshop- 
per ;  and  also  the  year  previous  to  that,  1874,  some  plantations  in  this  part  of  the  coun- 
try were  visited  by  what  we  call  a  caterpillar  from  the  woods  in  the  month  of  Septem- 
ber, which  ate  all  the  leaves  off  of  the  stocks,  but  did  not  injure  the  fruit ;  in  fact,  it 
was  an  advantage  to  the  farmer  in  that  respect ;  his  cotton  matured  at  an  earlier  pe- 
riod.—[H.  W.  Hammett,  Cobb. 

The  aphis  or  cotton-louse  injures  the  cotton  more  or  less  early  in  the  season.  In  past 
years  there  was  a  red  bug,  which  made  its  appearance  in  Florida  and  came  as  farnorth 
as  Mclutosh  County,  Georgia.  This  insect  did  considerable  damage.  Have  heard 
nothing  of  it  lately. — [William  Jones,  Clarke. 

We  have  what  is  called  the  cotton-louse  that  attacks  the  cotton  the  last  of  May  or 
first  of  June  and  injures  it  badly.  It  seems  to  be  under  the  leaves  and  sucks  the  plant 
until  it  stops  its  growth  entirely  for  some  time.  Hot  weather  after  a  while  drives  it 
away  and  the  plant  grows  rapidly.  Some  say  that  it  is  not  damaged  by  the  louse,  but 
I  think  differently. — [E.  M.  Thompson,  Jackson. 

I  herewith  inclose  another  insect  that  is  very  destructive  to  cotton,  in  box  marked  B. 
They  are  called  here  the  stinging  worm,  and  their  sthjg  is  very  painful.  They  web 
up  and  transform  into  a  different  shaped  worm;  They  remain  here  during  winter, 
being  so  securely  housed. — [S.  P.  Odom,  Dooly. 

Among  the  new  insects  I  have  found  ou  the  cotton  is  Cithcronia  rcgalis,  which  feeds  on 
the  leaves  in  August  and  September.  It  feeds  besides  ou  persimmons  and  sweet  gum, 
the  hickories  and  walnuts.  Its  occurrence  on  cotton- weed  excites  no  alarm,  to  which 
plant  it  is  not  as  injurious  as  the  double-hooded  hypercluuia. — [A.  E.  Grote,  Savannah. 

The  only  worm  that  troubles  us  in  this  county  is  t  he  army  worm.  They  only  eat  the 
leaves  and  destroy  the  grass.  Millions  are  now  in  the  cotton-fields  and  hay-fields,  but 
do  but  little  damage  to  the  cotton,  and  in  some  instances  are  a  benefit  by  eating  the 
leaves  from  large  rank  cotton,  causiug  the  sun  to  shine  in  and  open  it  where  otherwise 
the  cotton  would  rot  and  not  open.— [R.  H.  Springer,  Carroll. 

There  is  no  other  worm  except  the  caterpillar  that  affects  the  cotton  after  it  has 
been  chopped  and  worked  out.  The  cut- worm  very  often  does  serious  injury  to  the 
crop  in  the  way  of  injuring  the  stand  in  spring  when  the  cotton  first  comes  up. — [D.  P. 
Luke,  Berrien. 

The  boll-worm  does  us  more  damage,  upon  the  whole,  than  the  cotton-worm.  The 
previous  entomologist  of  the  Department  has  the  lly,  the  worm,  and  the  work,  accu- 
rately described. — [A.  J.  Cheves,  Macou. 

General  inquiry  in  regard  to  injury  of  cotton-plant  in  my  section  by  small  insect, 
and  request  to  send  you  sample  of  same,  is  hereby  acknowledged.  The  injury  com- 
menced, as  stated  in  my  report,  in  small  patches  around  trees  and  stumps  on  fresh 
land,  particularly  on  lands  which  had  been  in  continuous  cultivation  in  cotton  from 
five  to  seven  years,  and  about  the  last  week  in  July.  At  first  I  did  not  attach  much, 
importance  to  it,  considering  it  only  small  patches  of  crust,  but  in  two  or  three  weeks 
it  spread  over  a  number  of  acres  on  my  farm,  totally  mining  the  cotton  infected.  My 
neighbors  reported  the  same  thing,  in  the  same  way.  We  had  never  had  anything  of 
the  kind  before.  The  insect  is  very  small,  hardly  discernible  by  the  eye  without  a 
glass.  The  foliage  is  the  part  attacked,  which  falls  off  and  leaves  the  stalk.  Their 
ravages  seemed  worse  during  the  excessive  hot  weather;  rather  checked  up  afi*:r  a 
rain.  They  lasted  from  four  to  five  weeks,  which  was  about  the  last  week  in  August. 
Since  then  the  foliage  has  grown  out,  and  in  some  instances  a  fair  crop  of  half-grown 
fruit.  The  season  is  too  short,  however,  for  it  to  mature. — [Heury  W.  Deau,  Floyd. 

LOUISIANA. 

When  the  cotton-plant  is  small  it  is  sometimes  affected  with  small  insects  which  we 
call  "  cotton-lice,"  and  which  are  found  on  the  under  side  of  the  leaves.  They  cause 
the  leaves  to  draw  up  and  have  a  puckered  appearance.  This  we  call  "  possum-ears." 
If  very  numerous  they  cause  the  stalks  infested  to  become  sickly  and  sometimes  to  die. 
Next  comes  a  worm  which  preys  on  the  cotton  after  it  has  grown  to  bo  five  or  six  inches 
high  which  we  call  the  "  cut-worm."  It  burrows  in  the  ground  at  the  roots  of  the 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  487 

cotton-plant,  and  at  night  cuts  the  stalk  partially  or  altogether  through,  causing  its 
utter  destruction,  or  making  a  puny  and  deformed  plant  of  it.  Next  we  have  a  worm 
called  the  "boll- worm"  or  "  bore- worm,"  which  bores  a  hole  into'the  boll  after  it  has 
become  partially  or  wholly  grown,  and  causes  it  to  perish  altogether  or  to  become  hard 
and  imperfect  and  fail  to  mature  and  open.  Some  seasons  the  cotton-plant  is  injured 
by  grasshoppers,  but  their  injuries  are  not  deemed  very  great.  The  cotton-plant  some- 
times dies  of  rust,  but  this  is  considered  a  disease  of  the  plant  caused  by  something 
present  in  the  soil  which  poisons  the  plant,  or  some  elements  lacking  in  the  soil  to  nour- 
ish the  plant  properly. — [D.  M.  Hamilton,  West  Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The  boll-worm  is  comparatively  small,  resembling  the  silk- worm  in  its  early  stages. 
Its  attacks  are  made  within  the  calyx  and  about  the  base  of  the  boll,  which  it  per- 
forates, and  when  first  forming  are  tender  ;  it  wholly  devours  it  or  causes  it  to  drop 
off.  The  light  effectually  disposes  of  the  ino.th  that  deposits  this  egg.  The  greasy  rot 
is  caused  by  the  puncture  of  the  boll  by  a  bug  or  something.  It  looks  like  a  greasy 
spot  about  the  size  of  a  three-cent  silver  piece  with  a  little  dot  or  puncture  in  the  cen- 
ter. The  diseased  boll  when  broken  open  often  contains  a  small  variety  of  insects  some- 
times in  the  different  stages  of  their  transformations.  This  disease  first  made  its  ap- 
pearance in  1810  and  lasted  for  about  ten  years,  occasionally  to  such  an  extent  as  al- 
most to  cause  the  abandonment  of  the  culture  of  cotton,  a  contingency  prevented  by 
the  introduction  of  the  Tennessee  green  seed  which  was  exempt  from  the  disease  or 
less  affected  than  the  black  seed  variety.  It  reappeared  in  1852,  more  or  less  then  to 
date  (see  Wailes,  1854).  In  my  opinion  cotton  is  subject  to  as  many  ailments  as  human 
flesh  is  heir  to,  but  will  say  this  :  that  it  has  the  most  wonderfully  recuperative  pow- 
ers of  any  plant  I  ever  saw,  and  I  never  despair  of  a  cotton  crop  until  attacked  by 
worms,  for  if  you  give  it  half  a  chance  it  will  come  out  in  this  latitude.  31°  45'. — [j. 
W.  Burch,  Jefferson. 

The  boll-worm  visited  the  crops  here  early  in  July  (during  which  month  we  had 
repeated  rains),  and  has  continued  its  ravages  up  to  the  present  period.  The  opinion 
of  the  planters,  as  generally  expressed  to  me,  as  well  as  my  own,  is  that  it  has  done 
more  damage  this  year  than  the  anomis  will  do,  though  many  fields  are  now  stripped 
of  their  leaves  by  the  latter.  Many  say  the  worms  have  cut  the  crop  short  one-half, 
others  again  one-third.  The  grass-worm  appeared  likewise  in  July,  but  only  in  small 
areas,  and  though  found  eating  the  leaf  and  young  boll,  to  a  partial  extent,  did  no 
appreciable  damage.  The  leaf  has  been  covered  with  the  aphis  or  louse,  throughout 
the  season,  but  has  done  no  noticeable  damage.  I  have  found  occasionally  a  single 
large  worm,  resembling,  but  larger  than  the  boll-worm,  stripping  individual  stalks  of 
cotton.  No  other  insects  have  proved  injurious. — [E.  H.  Anderson,  Madison. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  worms,  both  very  destructive :  the  boll-worm,  which  pierces 
the  small  squares  first  and  is  not  larger  than  a  pin-point,  but  grows  two  or  three  inches 
long,  and  eats  all  the  green  bolls ;  and  the  leaf- worm,  that  eats  all  the  leaves,  leaving 
nothing  but  the  branches  or  stems. — [Kenneth  Clarke,  Chickasaw. 

The  boll-worm  often  destroys  many  of  the  growing  bolls.  But  as  every  stalk  pro- 
duces many  more  forms  than  it  can  mature  and  the  bolls  attacked  are  quickly  re- 
placed, the  damage  is  not  often  great. — [J.  Culbertson,  Rankin. 

Lice  are  sometimes  very  injurious  in  the  spring ;  and  in  the  season  of  production  the 
" blare- worm,"  a  small  worm  that  perforates  the  "square"  about  the  time  of  blooming 
and  causes  the  "square"  to  stand  blared  open  and  to  drop  off;  and  the  boll-worm,  so 
well  known  and  often  described,  often  does  great  damage. — [C.  Welch,  Covington. 

The  plant-louse,  Aphis,  is  very  destructive  on  the  young  cotton-plant,  especially  if 
the  weather  be  cool,  so  that  the  plant  cannot  grow  vigorously.  I  have  taken  some 
pains  to  investigate  its  habits.  If  you  desire  it  I  will  furnish  you  with  what  I  know 
relative  to  it.  Do  not  know  of  anything  that  will  counteract  its  work.  It  sucks  all 
the  sap  out  of  the  plant.  Some  suppose  the  ants  eat  them.  This,  however,  is  uot  the 
case ;  they  protect  them,  and  only  eat  the  nectar  they  discharge. — [W.  Spillman,  Clarke. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

The  common  grub,  garden,  or  "  colored  "  worm  is  very  destructive  to  cotton  in  this 
locality,  especially  on  light  soils  highly  manured.  They  cut  the  young  plant  off, 
during  the  night,  an  inch  or  so  above  the  ground,  and  pull  the  leaves  into  the  hole 
they  burrow  in  the  earth.  Plowing  the  ground  during  cold  weather  is  the  only  remedy 
ever  used,  and  not  an  efficient  one  at  all.  The  plant  is  also  attacked  in  early  spring  iu 
low.  damp  places,  by  a  small  insect  or  louse  known  among  us  as  the  "  blue-bug."  It 
sucks  the  plant  just  above  ground,  as  many  as  a  dozen  being  frequently  found  on  one 
plant.  Cotton-plants  are  also  troubled  in  the  months  of  June  and  July,  during  damp, 
cool  weather,  by  the  plant-louse.  They  seldom  destroy,  but  do  seriously  retard  the 
growth  of  the  plant. — [J.  Evans,  Cumberland. 

During  the  past  three  seasons  the  common  cabbage-worm  or  cut-worm  has  been  very 
destructive  to  young  cotton,  cutting  it  down  just  as  it  is  coming  up,  injuring  and  often 


488  REPORT  UPON  COTTON  INSECTS. 

destroying  the  stand  so  much  as  to  require  replanting.  They  were  very  destructive 
the  present  season  and  are  increasing  yearly.  They  never  do  any  damage  on  land  that 
was  lying  out  or  in  small  grain  the  previous  year.  They  are  specially  destructive  on 
land  that  has  been  planted  a  series  of  years  in  cotton.  Possibly  they  may  prove  a 
blessing  to  us,  for  if  they  continue  to  increase  they  will  force  us  into  a  rotation  of 
crops.  All  birds  and  poultry  seek  and  devour  them  greedily.  I  think  the  remedy  is 
in  the  protection  of  the  birds,  and  ceasing  to  plant  the  same  land  in  cotton  two  years 
in  succession.  The  rapid  increase  is  perhaps  to  be  attributed  to  the  unusually  mild 
winters  for  the  last  two  years. — [John  Robinson,  Wayne. 

The  cut-worm  will  occasionally  cut  young  cotton  when  the  weather  is  cool  and  wet, 
but  does  very  little  damage.— [F.  I.  Smith,  Halifax. 

TEXXESSEE. 

Though  to  a  very  limited  extent,  some  years  the  boll- worm  has  been  found.  We  do 
not,  like  even  to  guess  whether  the  boll- worm  can  reproduce  itself  in  this  latitude  (local- 
ity) or  not.  But  however  much  our  theory  may  be  rejected  as  to  its  production,  we 
venture  a  few  words.  The  moth  deposits  its  egg  in  the  young  fruit  (or  form)  when  in 
bloom.  The  boll  grows  to  maturity,  the  egg  is  hatched,  producing  a  worm  which  feeds 
upon  the  inside  of  the  boll  until  the  appointed  time,  then  cuts  its  way  out,  which  pro- 
cess completely  destroys  the  boll.  Sometimes  decay  takes  place  before  the  worm  cuts 
its  way  out.  It  is  a  mistaken  idea  that  the  worm  cuts  into  the  boll,  "  Worms  cut  their 
way  out."  There  is  a  moth  that  stings  other  young  fruib  here  (we  believe  same  as  cot- 
ton-moth), such  as  pease,  beans,  &c.,  when  in  bloom,  and  perhaps  when  the  fruit  is 
gathered  and  dried  for  winter  the  worm  finds  its  way  out.  We  only  guess  why  we  are 
not  troubled  with  the  cotton-worm.  Our  cotton  is  not  in  bloom  at  the  particular  time 
the  miller  lays  its  eggs.  We  are  aware  the  above  suggestion  will  be  subject  to  strong 
criticism,  nevertheless  they  are  our  convictions  from  experience  and  observation. — [E. 
W.  Cunningham,  Henderson. 

There  is  a  kind  of  lice  that  injures  the  cotton  here  to  some  small  extent. — [L.  Dod- 
son,  McMinu. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

The  cotton-worm  or  cotton-caterpillar  is  the  only  insect  which  has  been  known  to 
damage  the  plant  to  any  considerable  extent  in  this  county  (Barnwell).  On  some 
farms  the  "  stands"  have  been  injured  by  the  cut- worm,  which  is  the  same  as  that 
which  cuts  down  cabbage  and  other  vegetables,  and  is  not  peculiar  to  cotton.  This 
trouble  is  occasional — of  late  cool  springs.  Lice  or  Aphis  are  often  seen  on  the  young 
plant,  but  seldom  injure  it.  There  is  no  boll-worm  yet  in  any  part  of  the  county. — 
[James  C.  Brown,  Barnwell. 

TEXAS. 

The  boll-worm  (Hcltothis)  has  done  more  damage  this  year  than  the  Noctna  xylina. 
They  appeared  early  in  June,  and  the  third  crop  is  still  at  work.  The  crop  of'  this 
county  is  cut  off  at  least  one-third.  A  Held  of  sixty  acres  planted  by  my  brother-in- 
law  that  with  no  casualty  would  have  made,  forty-five  bales,  will  barely  make  fifteen, 
while  some  fields  are  entirely  untouched.  The  egg  is  laid  on  the  involucel  during  the 
night,  hatches  in  from  six  to  ten  days,  and  commences  feeding  on  the  parenchyma  of 
the  calyx,  and  as  soou  as  they  have  got  strength  they  eat  through  into  the  inclosed 
flower-bud,  or  into  the  boll,  if  laid  after  the  bloom.  They  destroy  one  or  more  of  the 
divisions  in  the  boll,  and  all  that  are  punctured  before  blooming  or  while  quite  young 
fall  off.  In  the  field  mentioned  above  we  found  many  stalks  six  to  seven  feet  high 
without  a  single  boll.  Instead  of  webbing  up  on  the  cotton-plant,  this  worm  descends 
into  the  ground,  where  it  makes  a  cocoon  and  is  enabled  to  withstand  the  severity  of 
our  winters,  and  thus  makes  its  appearance  as  soon  as  the  weather  becomes  warm  in 
the  spring.  I  have  often  plowed  out  the  chrysalides,  and  examined  to  see  if  they  wore 
alive,  finding  them  so.  The  fly,  or  moth,  is  hardly  half  as  largo  as  that  of  the  Former 
insect.  There  are  some  other  insects  injurious  to  the  cotton-plant,  and  I  do  not  know 
that  any  effort  has  been  made  for  their  extermination,  or  if  any  means  could  bo  adopted 
successfully. — [Walter  Barnes,  Cherokee. 

The  boll-worm  fly  deposits  its  egg  on  the  young  squares  just  before  they  bloom, 
about  the  last  of  July  or  first  of  August.  The  lly  deposits  its  eggs  at  twilight  and 
moonlight  nights.  I  cannot  say  what  kind  of  a  moth  it  is,  but  my  neighbor,  an  in- 
telligent planter,  says  it  is  a  yellow  fly,  smaller  than  the  army-worm  fly.  I  have  never 
seen  the  boll-worm  eat  anything  but  the  young  bolls  and  squares  before  blossoming. 
They  pierce  the  blossom  and  eat  or  suck  the  juice,  which  causes  them  to  drop  off. 
Some  seasons  they  are  more  numerous  than  others.  I  have  never  heard  of  any  means 
being  taken  by  any  farmer  to  destroy  or  prevent  their  depredations,  but  they  take 
their  presence  as  a  matter  of  course. — [C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

We  have  the  old-time  enemy,  the  boll-worm  that  punctures  the  squares  and  bolls. 
I  am  certain  the  larva  of  this  insect  falls  to  the  ground  and  hides  itself  there  to  per- 
fect its  being.  There  is  another  insect  that  we  call  the  "  boll- weevil"  or  "  ball-cur- 


APPENDIX   II ANSWERS    TO    CIRCULAR.  489 

cnlio,"  that  punctures  the  boll  and  causes  it  to  commence  rotting  from  a  very  small 
black  speck.  This  rot  continues  throughout  the  whole  boll,  sometimes  leaving  one 
lobe.  It  is  a  small  black  beetle  about  one-sixteenth  of  an  inch  long.  I  once  had  a 
fine  crop  destroyed  by  this  insect  when  my  near  neighbor  suffered  very  little.  My 
cotton  being  older,  was  suited  better  for  its  work.  There  was  a  great  quantity  of  cot- 
ton destroyed  in  Texas  this  year,  when  rot  had  credit  of  doing  it.  I  know  of  no 
remedy  against  this  insect.— [W.  T.  Hill.  Walker. 

There  is  what  we  call  the  boll- worm,  that  bores  a  small  hole  in  the  little  pod  while 
in  a  state  of  formation ;  it  does  its  work  in  the  night ;  it  will  be  hard  to  destroy. 
Thirty-five  years  ago  there  was  a  web-worm  came  on  the  cotton  iu  May,  and  J^terally 
killed  it,  except  the  stem ;  however  it  would  sprout  out  again  and  make  a  crop.  That 
was  in  certain  localities.  This  worm  has  entirely  disappeared.  I  have  lived  in  Texas 
forty  years  next  month ;  have  made  thirty-nine  crops.  My  experience  is  the  worm 
will  be  hard  to  overcome ;  he  is  a  fixture  upon  us,  and  the  surest  remedy  against  him 
is  to  plant  early  and  cultivate  well ;  in  so  doing  a  reasonable  crop  can  be  frequently 
realized.  If  all  the  farmers  would  combine  and  place  lamps  on  posts  iu  flat  tin  pans 
with  kerosene  in  them  the  moth  could  be  more  effectually  destroyed  than  any  other 
way  I  see.— [O.  H.  P.  Garrett,  Washington. 

The  boll-worm,  (Heliotkis)  has  done  more  injury  to  the  cotton-plant  than  any  other 
insect  this  year.  Unlike  the  army  worm,  they  hibernate  in  the  country,  and  commence 
their  depredations  as  soon  as  the  young  bloom  buds  make  their  appearance.  Some 
years  they  do  a  great  deal  of  damage ;  it  is  said  by  scrtne  farmers  that  fifty  per  cent,  of 
the  crop  is  lost  on  account  of  the  boll-worm.  It  seems  the  moth  deposits  the  egg  in 
the  last  bloom  bud;  When  hatched  it  eats  out  the  pistil  of  the  unexpanded  flower, 
(it  is  now  called  sharp-shooter,)  then  descends  the  branch,  eating  up  all  on  his  way, 
and  by  the  time  it  gets  to  the  last  one  perhaps  it  is  grown  and  ready  to  go  into  the 
chrysalis  state.  There  are  birds  and  poultry  that  feed  on  the  larva  when  it  can  be 
got  at.  The  plant-louse  is  somewhat  injurious  to  the  young  cotton-plant ;  hot  weather 
soon  drives  it  away. — [ J.  M.  Glasco,  Upshur. 

The  cut-worm,  boll- worm,  grasshopper,  and  lice  are  all  more  or  less  injurious  to  the 
cotton-plant.— [S.  B.  Tackaberry,  Polk. 

In  1877  the  boll-worm  appeared  in  Clay  County,  and  some  fields  were  about  half 
eaten  up,  while  others  were  not  touched. — [William  Tanner,  Clay. 

The  boll- worm  is  some  years  quite  destructive,  though  I  hear  of  none  this  year. — 
[Scimuel  Davis,  Hunt. 

When  the  young  plant  first  makes  its  appearance  above  the  ground  the  cut-worm, 
which  attacks  all  young  plants,  will  destroy  a  few  plants  here  and  there.  Later  in  the 
spring,  when  the  plant  has  taken  on  some  five  or  six  or  more  leaves,  the  web-worm 
almost  every  year  will  eat  and  web  upon  some  of  the  most  vigorous  stalks.  The  injury 
inflicted  by  these  insects  is  not  much  dreaded,  as  their  evil  tendencies  may  be  corrected, 
and  they  soon  disappear  as  spring  advances.  The  next  and  last  enemy  of  the  cotton- 
plant  is  the  boll- worm,  which  only  penetrates  the  young  boll  when  in  its  most  delicate 
and  tender  state,  and  is  sometimes  more  destructive  than  the  army  worm.  There  are 
some  points  of  resemblance  between  the  two,  but  their  tastes  and  habits,  although  both 
only  prey  on  cotton,  are  totally  different.  They  are  represented  as  having  appeared 
in  several  counties  of  the  interior.  They  are  rarely  seen  on  or  near  the  coast,  evidently 
preferring  a  higher  latitude. — [W.  J.  Jones,  Galveston. 

This  insect,  though  not  so  numerous  nor  so  regular  in  its  visitations,  is  far  more  for- 
midable in  its  ravages  than  the  leaf-worm,  since  there  is  no  way  of  saturating  the  cot- 
ton-boll with  poison  to  destroy  them.  A  very  intelligent  planter  in  Falls  County,  on  the 
Brazos  River,  in  this  State,  is  well  satisfied  that  he  has  found  the  miller  or  mother  moth 
of  this  worm,  and  has  discovered  a  sure,  simple,  and  inexpensive  method  for  its  de- 
struction, and  at  the  same  time  increasing  the  yield  of  the  staple.  He  says  the  egg  is 
deposited  by  a  moth  of  a  lighter  color,  of  larger  size,  and  much  heavier  body  than  that 
of  the  army  worm ;  that  it  invariably  deposits  its  eggs  on  the  very  top  bud  of  the  cot- 
ton-plant; that  as  the  worm  increases  in  size  he  travels  down  the  stalk,  taking  every 
boll  as  he  goes,  rapidly  penetrating  the  same  in  its  young  and  succulent  state,  very 
few  worms  completing  the  destruction  of  the  entire  fruit  of  the  plant.  The  worm 
attaining  its  full  growth  is  larger  than  the  army  worm,  and  is  more  destructive  to  tho 
product  of  the  plant.  This  gentleman,  with  some  of  his  neighbors,  watched  closely 
the  progress  of  this  insect,  and  very  satisfactory  results  were  obtained.  Experiments 
were  made  upon  three  different  plantations  with  the  same  results.  They  all  checked 
the  march  by  topping  the  cotton  (removing  the  bud)  when  the  moth  first  made  its 
appearance,  and  whether  the  egg  was  only  in  deposit  or  the  young  worm  at  work,  tho 
result  was  the  same,  as  both  perished  upon  the  ground,  and  the  worm  never  made  an 
effort  to  reascend  the  stalk.  The  topping  of  cotton  has  been  practiced  many  years  by 
some  of  our  most  intelligent  planters,  but  with  a  different  purpose,  the  stripping  of 
the  top  being  supposed  to  increase  the  fruiting  and  to  hasten  the  opening  of  the  pods 
of  cotton. — [William  J.  Jones,  Galveston. 

The  boll-worm  is  very  injurious  to  cotton  in  August  and  September  by  boring  in  tho 


490  REPORT    UPON    COTTON   INSECTS. 

bloom  and  the  young  bolls,  causing  them  to  fall  off.  They  are  more  or  less  on  the  cot- 
ton every  year.  The  first  crop  of  bolls  that  are  formed  in  July  generally  escape  their 
ravages,  but  the  top  squares  and  bollst  hat  conie  in  August  are  liable  to  their  attacks. — 
[C.  B.  Richardson,  Rusk. 

The  cotton  has  two  more  dreadful  enemies ;  the  first  consists  of  a  small  bee  or  fly  that 
bores  into  the  square  or  rather  the  formation  of  the  bloom,  and  causes  it  to  wither  and 
fall  off.  Some  years  they  are  very  destructive.  The  second  is  the  boll- worm  that  pene- 
trates the  young  boll  in  its  tender  state,  causing  it  to  fall  and  sometimes  rot  on  the 
plant.  This  pest  is  caused  by  a  small  fly  or  bee  that  deposits  its  eggs  on  the  boll,  and 
I  think  is  the  same  chap  that  bores  in  the  square ;  the  only  way  to  catch  or  destroy 
him  is  by  the  lamp ;  you  cannot  do  anything  with  him  with  poison,  as  he  only  preys 
on  the  boll,  &c.— [Nat.  Hoi  man,  Fayette. 

There  is  one  other  insect  that  has  destroyed  more  cotton  in  this  locality  within  the 
four  years  than  all  other  insects  combined.  It  is  known  here  as  the  boll  worm,  the 
moth  of  which  is  larger  and  darker  than  the  cotton-moth,  which  deposits  its  eggs  by 
piercing  the  form  or  square  at  the  base  of  the  bulb  that  makes  the  bloom.  The  egg 
hatches  in  a  few  days,  and  the  larva  devours  the  young  boll  before  it  fairly  blooms. 
Then  it  crawls  upon  the  limb  to  another  boll,  bores  in,  and  eats  out  the  contents; 
then  to  another,  and  so  on  until  all,  or  nearly  all,  that  is  upon  the  stalk  is  destroyed. 
The  habit  of  the  moth  is  nearly  that  of  the  cotton-moth,  but  the  worm  does  not  re- 
semble that  of  the  cotton-worm  in  any  respect.  It  does  not  feed  upon  anything  but 
the  cotton-boll.  Its  numbers  are  increasing  so  rapidly  and  its  destruction  so  great,  it 
is  becoming  a  terror  to  the  cotton  planter  in  this  locality.  If  you  know  anything  of 
this  worm  and  can  point  out  some  means  of  destroying  it  you  will  have  the  gratitude 
of  the  cotton  planters  in  this  county  and  probably  throughout  the  cottou  belt. — [  J. 
W.  Jackson,  Titus. 

The  plant  is  injured  to  some  extent  by  aphides  or  leaf-louse,  which  appear  every 
year  in  large  numbers  on  the  lower  side  of  the  leaves  ;  they  do  the  most  injury  in 
spring,  when  the  plant  is  small  and  tender.  The  web-worm,  which  only  injures  the 
plant  in  spring  when  the  plant  is  small,  and  appears  mostly  in  large  and  destructive 
numbers  during  the  prevalence  of  cold  and  dry  weather,  the  plant  then  making  little 
or  no  progress  in  growth ;  the  worm  is  a  small  insect  about  one  inch  in  length,  green 
with  black  dots,  spins  the  leaf  together,  and  destroys  the  substance  between  the  leaf 
ribs,  causing  the  young  plant  to  wither  and  die.  The  boll-worm,  which  attacks  the 
grown  fruit  before  its  opening,  boring  into  it  and  destroying  the  lint,  has  been  very 
destructive  the  past  summer.  Several  varieties  of  grasshoppers,  the  green  grasshop- 
per appearing  in  summer,  has  been  observed  the  past  summer  in  large  and  destructive 
numbers  in  some  fields. — f  J.  H.  Krancher,  Austin. 


III. 


LIST  OF  CORRESPONDENTS. 

The  following  list  contains  the  names  and  addresses  of  those  gentlemen  not  regu- 
larly employed  in  the  investigation  who  have  assisted  in  its  prosecution  either  by  an- 
swers to  the  circular-letter  or  by  other  correspondence.  They  are  arranged  alphabet- 
ically under  the  subheads  of  their  respective  States,  and  the  States  themselves  are  also 
alphabetically  arranged : 

ALABAMA. 


Names  of  correspondents. 

Town. 

County. 

Camden 

Wilcos 

P.D.Bowles         .            

I  F  Culver 

Bullock 

J.F.Calhoun  

Dallas. 

J.  A.Callaway  

Snowdoun  

Montgomery. 

W.M.Douglas  

John  Witberspoon  Du  Boso 

Huntsville  

Pike  lload 

Madison. 

I.  D.  Driesbach      ...             

Baldwin. 

A  D  Edwards 

P.  T  Graves  

BurkvFlle    

H  Hawkins 

Hawkinsville 

J.  N.  Gilmore  

Gastou  

Su  niter. 

R.F.Henry                                

Mississippi.  For 

C.  C.  Howard 

Pickens  Coun- 
ty, Alabama. 

James  M.  Harrington  

Newtown  Academy  

Monroe. 
Bibb. 

M  W  Hand 

Fork  land 

Mulberry     

John  D.  Johnston,  M.  D  

Sumterville  
Jayville           

Sumter. 

Knox,  Minge  and  Evans  
DavidLee    

Faunsdale  

Mount  Willin^  

Hale. 
Lowndes. 

J.C.Matthews  

R.  H  Powell 

Crittenden  Mills  

Dale. 
Bullock 

Mount  Mei"-s 

J.  R  Rogers   
R.W.Russell  

Union  Springs  

Bullock.      " 

H.  A.  Stolenwerck 

Perry 

J.  H.  Smith  

Minter  

Dallas. 

H.  Tutwiler  

Hale. 

George  W.  Thagard  

Crenshaw. 

Robert  S.  Williams  

Mount  Meigs  

Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 


Names  of  correspondents 


S.'W.  Cochrau 

Fulton. 

E  T  Dale 

Miller 

O.  L  Dodd  

Baxter. 

T  S  Edwards 

Pope 

T.  W.  Quiim  
L.  N.  Rhodes  
J.  W.  Ransom  

Prattsvillo  
Wittsburgh  

Grant. 
Cross. 
Craighead. 

Alfred  A.  Turner  

Bradley. 

John  T  Wickham 

Boydsville 

Clay. 

G.  Whittington  

Mount  Ida  

Montgomery. 

Columbia. 

County. 


491 


492 


REPORT   UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 
FLORIDA. 


Names  of  correspondents. 

Town. 

County. 

J  Bradford 

Tallahassee 

Leon 

Deadiueu's  Bay 

Taylor 

Robert  Gamble 

John  M.  McGehee  

Milton  ... 

I-'    M    Meek  in 

Morrison's  Mills 

W.  E.  Woodruff  

Now  Berlin  

Duval. 

Names  of  correspondents. 


County. 


A.  J.  Cheves  

Kirkland                                     Colin- 

U   M7  Hamnibtt                       .           ...            .     . 

Marietta      .                      .           Cobb. 

W  A  Uariis 

Isabella                                       Worth 

William  Jones  

Athens     Clark. 

William  J.  Johnson  

Spring  Place  j  Murray. 
Bueua  Vista  Mai  ion. 

M.  D   Landlord 

D  p  Luke 

"Va><hville                                    ;  Berrien 

S  P.  Odora      .  . 

Dravton      Dooly. 

R   il   Spi  iu  fer 

Whitesburn1                                  Carroll 

E.M.Thompson     

John  T   \Viu"iield 

Washington                                Wilkes 

LOUISIANA. 


Names  of  correspondents. 

Town. 

County. 

I  U  Ball  M  D 

West  Feliciaua. 

West  Ft-lii-iaiia 

C  B  Richardson 

II.  B.  Shaw  
G  W  Thomas 

Lake  Saint  John  

Concordia. 

MISSISSIPPI. 


Names  of  correspondents. 


E.  H.  Anderson,  M.  D  

J  W  Burch 

Kirkwood  

Madison. 

S.Culbertson  

Itankin 

Daniel  Cohen    

Ashwood  Station    

Wilkinson. 

PortGiUsou  

Claiborno. 

William  T.Lewis  
1)  I,  1'liares  M.  D               

Louisville  
Woodville 

Winston. 
Wilkinson. 

John  C.  Russell  
C.  F.  Shen-iod  

Kirkwood  

Madison. 

Madison. 

W  Spillman 

Clark 

Georiio  V  Webb 

Liberty 

C  Welch 

County. 


APPENDIX   III. LIST    OF    CORRESPONDENTS.  493 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 


Names  of  correspondents. 

Town. 

County. 

S  \V  Blalock 

Bakersville 

Mitchell 

J  D  Click 

Iredell 

"W  G-  Cnrtis                                

Smithvi'Ue 

D  D  Davies 

J  J  Erwiii            .     . 

Burke 

J   Evans 

II.  M.  Ilouston     

Union 

"W.  II.  Hartgrove  

Garden  Creek  

Haywood. 

T  H-Lassiter5'                

Gatesvillo 

Gates 

Tadkin 

M.  McKay...  

Lillington 

Harnett. 

T  L  Rawley 

Boffin 

John  Robinson  , 

Goldsborou^h      

Wayne. 

F.I.  Smith  

Scotland  Neck  
Pin  Hook 

Halifax. 

R.  T.  Weaver     

Saint  John 

Hertlbrd. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 


Names  of  correspondents. 

Town. 

County. 

James  C.  Brown  

Millettville   

Barnwell 

Paul  S.  Felder  
James  W  Grace 

Orangcbui-gh  

Orangeburgh. 

TENNESSEE. 


Names  of  correspondents. 

Town. 

County. 

N.  T.  Cavit  

Paris  

E.  W.  Cunningham  
L  Dodsoii  ...  

Lexington  
Athens  

Henderson. 
McMitfn. 

W.C.Emmert  

Vanderbilt  

Unicoi. 
Weakley 

L.  C.  Hall.... 

A.  W.  Hunt  M.  D 

Perry 

John  F.  Hauser  

Gruetli  

Sevicrville 

H.  \V.  Hart  
J.  P.  Hooke.   . 

Pikoville  

Maryvillo 

Bledsoe. 

1).  W.  Holrnan  
J.  S.  Lindsay  

Fayettcville  

Lincoln. 
Campbell. 

Robert  McNeilly  

Charlotte  

Dickson. 

John  McMillan  

Decatnrville  

Decatur. 

Glenloch 

Miles  F.  West 

J.  K.  P.  Wallace  

George  "W.  Walker  

Springfield  

Robertson. 

494 


EEPORT    UPON   COTTON   INSECTS. 
TEXAS. 


Xames  of  correspondents. 

Town. 

County. 

Tesarkana   Miller  County 

Arkansas. 

ty,  Texas' 

P  S  Clarke      

Waller. 

Greenville.. 

Hunt 

J  M  Glasco                                                  

Gilmer                  

Upshur. 

W  T  Hill 

Waverly 

Walker 

Stephen  Harbert                   

Alley  ton      

Colorado. 

Fayette 

AY  E  Hayes                      

Bee. 

J  W  Jackson 

Titus. 

Millheim  

Austin. 

I.  F.  P  .Kruise.  

FortMcKavett  

Goliad 

Menard. 
Goliad- 

San  Patricio          

San  Patricio. 

Eusk 

A  Shroeter               .          

Buraet. 

Blanco. 

S  B  Tackaberry     

Moscow  

Polk. 

Cambridge  

Clay. 

Maverick 

Brazoria. 

P  S  Watts 

Hardin 

Hardin. 

E  Wipprecht                              

Comal. 

INDEX. 


A. 

Page. 

Abbott,  C.  C.,  quoted 149 

Acacia  magniti  ca,  nectar  of 326 

spbaerocepbala 327 

Acanthocephala  femorata 167, 168 

AcberoDtia  atropos 202 

Acklin's  Island,  cbenille  oil 276 

ravages  of  cotton-worm  on 19 

Acrobasis  juglandis 200 

Adult  Aletia.    (See  cotton-worm  motb). 

Aegeriadae 11 

Affleck,  Thomas,  article  on  cotton- insects 277, 278 

commendation  of  writings  of 75 

quoted 24,20,109,106,191 

sends  specimens  to  Harris  13 

views  on  migration  discussed 118 

Agelaius  phaenicus  ?-s.  cotton-worms . 142 

Agrotis.  several  species  mistaken  for  Aletia 106 

Ayrotis  ypsilon,  attracted  to  Aletia  bait 259 

Alabama,  average  losses 70 

Aletia  argillacea,  technical  description , .90 

(See  cotton- worm  moth). 

Aletia,  destruction  of  eggs , i 231 

hand-picking  vs 230 

preventive  measures  against 230 

vitellina 14 

Alexandria  Eepublican,  quoted 23 

Allen,  J.  A.,  quoted 146 

Allen,  S.  D.,  duster 247 

Amarantus  spinosus,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 92 

Ambrobia  artemesiaefolia,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 92 

American  Entomologist,  quoted 166 

gooseberry  saw-fly,  Anna  spinosa  vs 166 

Amount  of  damage,  table  showing 47-62 

Amphigyra,  attracted  to  Aletia  bait «. 259 

Anderson,  E.  H.,  appointment  as  local  observer 3 

articles  on  cotton- worm 281 

quoted 179,258,283,178,103 

Andrena,  Anna  spinosa  vs 166 

Anomis  bipunctiua,  Guene"e,  synonymous  with  N.  xylina 14 

eiosa  Hlibn • 14 

grandipuucta  Guen .  15 

Ants  vs.  boll-worms 310 

vs.  cotton-worms . 181 

vs.  the  wet  weather  abundance  of  the  cotton-worm 134, 137 

Aphides,  aphis  lions  vs 164 

Aphis  gossypii.Sinea  multispinosa  vs 170 

Aphis  lions,  habits  of 164 

vs.  cotton- worms 1G4 

Aphis  mali,  Sinea  multispinosa  vs 170 

Araneida  vs.  cotton- worms 162 

Argiope  riparia  vs.  the  cotton-worm 163 

Argynnis  columbina 178 

Arkansas,  average  losses 70 

Arma  spinosa  vs.  the  cotton- worm 166 

Army  worm  of  the  North ...202,203,11 

use  as  a  popular  name  for  the  cotton- worm 11 

495 


496  INDEX. 


Arsenic,  accumulations  of,  in  the  soil  .........................................  235 

its  compouiHls  ......................................................  232 

its  compounds,  objections  to  the  use  of  ...............................  234 

metallic  ............................................................  261 

Arsenious  acid  vs.  Aletia  .....................................................  259 

Asiliidae  ....................................................................  170 

Asilus-nies  ..................................................................  170 

vs.  boll-  worms  ....................................................  311 

Asilns  sericeous  .............................................................  172 

Attacua  promethia  ............   .............................................  201 

sp.  mistaken  for  Aletia  ..............................................  103 

Attides,  vs.  cotton-worms  .....................................................  163 

Attus  fasciatus  ..............................................................  163 

nnbilus  vs.  the  cotton-  worm  ...........................................  163 

Aughey,  S.,  quoted  ........................  .............................  212,  157,  140 

Australia,  boll-  worm  Jn  ......................................................  293 

enemies  to  cotton  crop  in.  ___  ........  .  ...........  ..  .........  .  .....  71 

Average  losses,  table  of  ......................................................  70 

B. 

Bahamas,  cotton-worms  in,  since  1800  ........................................  71 

investigation  by  the  assembly  of  the  ...............................  19 

Bail,  Dr.,  quoted  ............................................................  217 

Bailey,  J.  F.,  quoted  ........  ..............................................   261,  101 

Ball,  I.  U.,  quoted  .........................................................   184,166 

Barnes,  W.,  quoted  ........................................................  28es,  122 

Barn  swallow  vs.  cotton-worms  ..............................................  142 

Bartramian  plovers  vs.  insects  ...............................................  212 

Batclielder,  C.  F.,  quoted  ....................................................  146 

Baton  Rouge  Advertiser,  quoted  .............................................  22 

Bats  vs.  cotton-  worms  .................  ..............  .  .....  -.  .....  ..  .........  13d 

Beach,  A.  E.,  article  on  cotton-  worm  ...........    ,  ............................  282 

Beans,  boll-worm  r*  .......................................................  29(5,297 

Bechstein,  F.  M.,  quoted  ....................................................  150 

Bee-martin  vs.  cotton-worms  .................................................  141 

Beer  torulae  vs.  insects  .......................................................  217 

Bembecidae  .................................................................  181 

Bessey,  C.  E.,  quoted  ........................................................  233 

Bibliography,  chapter  on  ....................................................  276 

of  nectar  ......................................................  333 

scope  of  .......................................................  276 

Bienville,  dispatch  of  ........................................................  18 

Birds  nesting  in  south  .......................................................  159 

protection  of  ........................  ,  .................................  230 

vs.  cottou-worms  ......................................................  141 

Blackbird,  cow,  rs.  cotton-worms  .............................................  142 

red-wing,  vs.  cotton-worms  .......................................  142 

Blasted  squares,  reasons  for  ..................................................  290 

Bluebird,  vs.  cotton-  worms  ...................................................  141 

Blue  jays,  warning  against  ..................................................  158 

Blnestoue,  rs.  Aletia  ..............................  ...........................  261 

Boarmia,  sp  .................................................................  104 

Bobolinks,  rs.  cotton-worms  ..................................................  141 

Bock,  T.  F.,  quoted  ..........................................................  150 

Boll-  worm,  amount  of  damage  done  by  .....................................  287-291 

ants  rs  ..........................................................  310 

cannibalistic  habits  ..............................................  303 

chrysalis,  description  of  ..........................................  305 

chrysalis,  place  of  pupation  .......................................  304 

diversity  of  color  .................................................  301 

enemies  of  .......................................................  311 

fifth  brood  .........................  ..............................  308 

first  brood  .....................................................  307,300 

first  food  .......................................................  300 

food  plants  ......................................................  293 

fourth  brood  .....................  ................................  308 

geographical  distribution  .........................................  293 

hibernation...                                      ..............................  309 


INDEX.  497 

Page. 

Boll- worm,  identical  with  corn- worm 293, 295 

influence  of  weather  on 309 

method  of  work 301 

most  constant  features 302 

moth,  destruction  of 315 

moth,  general  habits 30(j 

moth,  time  of  flight 306 

moth,  variation 306 

nomenclature  .,.. 292 

number  of  broods ,.       307 

parasites  of 311 

preying  on  Aletia 17!) 

remedies  for 311 

second  brood 307 

the  egg 297 

third  brood 307,308 

use  of  term , 292 

variation  in  broods 308 

vs.  Aletia  chrysalides 303 

vs.  Aletia  larvae 304 

corn 2HU 

young 299 

Bombus,  sp.  vs.  nectar  of  cotton 322 

Bombyciae 12 

Bombycidae 11 

Bouasa  umbellus  vs.  cotton-worms 142 

Bond,  quoted 293 

Bonnet  squash,  nectar  of ., 327 

Bowles,  P.  D.,  quoted 142,138.98 

Bradford,  John,  quoted , 258 

Brazil,  cotton-worm  in 74 

Brewer,  T.  M.,  quoted 156 

Brewster,  William,  quoted 144 

British  Guiana,  cotton-worm  in 72 

Brown,  H.  C.,  quoted 288,184 

Brown,  J.  C.,  quoted 136,184 

Buhach 236 

Bull  bat  vs.  cotton- worms 142 

Bunting,  the  painted,  rs.  cotton- worms   141 

Burgess,  Edmund,  acknowledgment  of  assistance  from 8 

quoted 209,89,117 

Burke,  J.  W.,  quoted 98 

Burnett,  W.  I.,  on  the  cotton- worm 278,113 

views  on  migration  discussed 119 

Butler,  Major,  destruction  of  fields  of,  in  1793 19 

Byrne  and  Strunk's  lantern 272 

C. 

Calcorus  bimaeulatus  cs.  cotton-bolls 290 

rapidus  vs.  cotton-bolls , 290 

Callaway,  J.  A.,  quoted 98,67, 184 

Callidryas  eubule  vs.  nectar  of  cotton 322 

Calliphora 206 

Caloptenus  sp.,  Erax  apicalis  vs .-.  173 

Calosoma  callidum 175 

scrutator 175 

Camel-cricket  vs.  the  cotton- worm 165 

Canker-worm,  London  purple  vs 234 

Sinea  multispinosa  vs , 169 

Capers,  C.W.,  quoted 19,20,21 

Capers,  Dr.  C.  W.,  sends  specimens  to  Say 12 

Capsicum  annuuni,  boll-worm  vs 297 

Carabidae ; 174 

Carbolic  acid 220,221,235 

Carolina  tiger  beetle 174 

Carpenter,  C.  M.,  quoted 144 

Carpocapsa  pomonella 200 

Cassia  obtusif olia,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 92 

32  C  I 


498  INDEX. 

Page. 

Cassia  occidentalia;  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 92 

nectar  of 328 

Caterpillar,  the 11 

Cuts  vs.  cotton- worms 138 

Chalcididae,  general  remarks  on 193 

Chalcid  parasite,  unnamed 196 

Chalcia 230 

ovata 194,212 

C harleston  Library  Society,  acknowledgment  of  loan  of  books  from 8 

Cbarlevoix,  saw  cotton  in*1722 18 

Cbauliogaathus  marginatua 322 

vs.  cotton- worms 176 

pennsylvanicus 175 

Chenille  in  Guiana 19 

introduction  as  a  popular  name 11 

Cbeves,  A.  J.,  quoted 2*3 

Chilocorus  bivuluerus 177 

Chickens  vs.  cotton-worms 139 

Chickpea,  boll-worm  vs '. 296 

Chisholm,  Dr.,  account  of  the  chenille  in  British  Guiana 72 

article  on  cotton- worm 276 

description  of  the  cheuille  of  Guiana - 18 

quoted 139 

Chisholm,  Robert,  quoted 113 

Chordeiles  virginianus  vs.  cotton-worms 142 

Chrysalides  of  boll- worm,  destruction  of 314 

of  Aletia 83 

of  boll- worm,  description 305 

place  of  pupation 304 

Cbrysis  attracted  to  Aletia  bait 259 

Chrysomelidae 178 

Chrysomitris  tristis  vs.  cotton-worms 141 

•Chrysopa  oculata 164 

perla 164 

•Cicada,  Anna  spinosa  vs 166 

•Cicer  arietinum,  boll- worm  vs 296 

•Ciucindela 174 

•Ciucindelidae 173 

•Circular  of  July  22,  1878 3 

Cirroauilua  eaurus 195 

Clarke,  P.  S.,  quoted 21,184,122 

Classification  and  nomenclature,  chapter  on 11 

•Clear- winged  moths 11 

Clubiona  pallens 163 

•Cobalt  vs.  Aletia 261 

Cocciuella,  Arma  spinosa  vs 166 

muuda 176 

9-  notata 17(5 

veuusta 177 

•Coccinellidae 176 

Coccygus  Americanus  vs.  cotton-worma 142 

Cocoon  of  Aletia 82 

•Coffee- weed,  nectar  of 328 

Coleoptera,  members  of,  preying  on  Aletia 173 

Collecting  larvae 231 

•Colluris  ludovicianus  vs.  cotton-worma 142 

Colopha  nlmicola 179 

Colorado  potato-bug  killed  by  Tachiuas 203 

Mantis  Carolina  vs 165 

Sinea  multispiuosa  vs 169 

•Comstock,  J.  H.,  appointment  as  special  agent 

region  assigned  to 3 

scope  of  work 6 

takes  charge  of  entomological  division 7 

Concordia  Intelligencer  quoted 22 

•Coons  vs.  cotton- worms 138 

Corn-bud  worm,  use  of  name .' 292 

•Corn- worm,  use  of  name 292 

Corouilla  varia,  extra-iloral  nectar  of 8J2 


INDEX.  499 


Corrosive  sublimate  t?8.  Aletia 259 

Cosmia 13 

Cotton-ant,  the 18:5 

Cotton  army-worm , 11 

Cotton-caterpillar 11 

Cotton  culture  in  United  States,  early  history  of , 17 

Cotton-fly 11 

Cotton-  Lygaeus 290 

Cotton-moth 11 

Cotton- worm 11 

invertebrate  enemies  of 162 

Cotton-worm  moth 11 

appearance 84 

chapter  on  migrations  of 109 

food  of 84 

hibernation 99-108 

conclusions 106 

length  of  life 88 

localities  of  hibernation ..' 108 

method  of  piercing  fruit 86 

natural  position  at  rest 88 

number  of  eggs  laid  by 88 

other  moths  mistaken  for 106 

powers  of  flight 89 

presence  in  Northern  States 89 

structure  of  maxillae 86-87 

technical  description 90 

time  of  oviposition 88 

vs.  apples 86 

vs.  Cassia  occidentals 85 

vs.  cotton  glands 84 

vs.  cow-pea 85 

vs.  figs 86 

vs.  grapes 86 

vs.  jujube 86 

vs.  melons 86 

vs.  peaches 86 

vs.  Paspalum  laeve „ 84 

natural  enemies  of '. 138 

Cotton-worm.     (See.Larva  of  Aletia.) 

vertebrate  enemies  of 138 

Coues,  Dr.  E.,  acknowledgment  of  assistance  from 8 

quoted 152 

Cow-bird,  warning  against 158 

Cow-pea,  boll-worm  vs 296 

Cragiu,  P.  \V.,  quoted 74 

Cranston,  G.  C.,  lantern 270 

Crematogaster 187 

clava 188 

lincolata 188 

Cresson,  E.  T.,  acknowledgment  of  assistance  from 8 

quoted 198,201 

Cryptus  conquisitor.     (See  Pimpla  conquisitor.) 

hyalina 199 

nuncius 201 

pleurivinctus 199 

Cuba,  cotton- worm  in 72 

Cuckoo,  yellow-bill,  vs.  cotton-worms 142 

Cucurbita  pepo,  boll- worm  vs 297 

Culver,  I.  F.,  quoted 66, 184 

Cupidonia  cupido,  vs.  cotton-worms 142 

Cut- worms ' 12 

fall  plowing  a  remedy  for 314 

Cyanide  of  potassium  vs.  Aletia 259 

Cyanospiza  ciris,  vs.  cotton-worms 141 

cyanea  vs.  cotton-worms 141 

Cyprepediuin 322 


500  INDEX. 

D. 

Page. 

Dakruuia  coccidivora ." 179 

Damage,  table  showing  amount  of 47-64 

Darlmgtonia  Caljfornica,  nectar  of 328 

Darwin,  Francis,  quoted 87 

Danghfrey's  machine £42,243,229 

Davis,  N.  A.,  quoted 231,134,136 

sifter 249 

Davis,  S.,  quoted 184 

Deane,  R.,  quoted 146 

Depressaria  gossypiella ,.<. 14 

gossypioides 13 

Destruction  of  Aletia  pupae _„ ...'....  £56 

cotton-worms  by  machinery 253 

eggs 231 

moths 256 

Devil's  coach-horses  vs.  boll- worms 311 

darning-needles lb'4 

horse 108 

riding  horse  rs.  the  cotton- worm ]  G5 

Dextrine 220,226,227,228 

Diabrotica  12-punctata i 178 

Dibolia  aerea 103 

Didictyum  zigzag   197,213 

Diogmites  discolor 172 

Diony zias  sp. 172 

Diptera,  members  of,  preying  on  Aletia 170 

parasites  of  Aletia  belonging  to. 202 

Dixwell,  J.,  quoted 146 

Dodge,  C.  R.,  acknowledgment  of  the  services  of 8 

articles  on  cotton- worm 281, 283 

Dogs  vs.  cotton- worms 138 

Dolichoderidae 185 

Dolichonyx  oryzivorous  vs.  cotton-worms 141 

Dolychos 7 

Domestic  fowls  vs.  cotton-worms 1:59 

Donovan,  J.,  experiments  with  Paris  green 38 

use  of  poultry  vs.  cotton-worms 139 

Dorymyrmex 185 

flavns 183,187 

insanus '. 163,186 

pyramicus.     (See  D.  insanus.) 

Doryphora  10-liueata,  Anna  spinosa  vs 166 

Donblcday,  E.,  article  on  cotton-worm 277,278 

letter  to  Harris 13 

Dragon-flies,  habits  of 164 

Drasteria  orechta,  mistaken  for  Aletia , 106 

Dricsbach,  J.  D..  quoted 98 

Dry  poisons — 245 

Ducks  vs.  cottoii- worms 140 

Dudley,  C.  R.,  lantern 269 

Dunlap,  R.  B.,  quoted 138 

Duke,  J.  R.,  lantern 266 

Dutch  Guiana,  cotton- worm  in 73 

E. 

Ear-worm 308 

Edwards,  Bryan,  quoted 19 

work  on  West  Indies 276 

Edwards,  T.  S.,  quoted 66 

Edwards,  \V.  II.,  quoted •- 1H2 

Egg  of  Aletia -5 

description  of 75 

figured 76 

length  of  time  before  hatching 76 

number  laid  by  a  single  moth 88 

place  and  manner  of  deposit 76 

Egg  of  boll-worm  moth,  place  of  deposit 298 


INDEX.  501 

Page. 

Egg  of  Heliothis,  description 297,298 

length  of  time  before  hatching..-. 298 

Egg  parasite  on  the  cotton- worm „ 193 

Egypt,  rumor  of  Aletia  in 71 

Eldriclge,  F.  A.,  poison  distributor : 251 

Elis4-notata 181 

vs.  nectar  of  cotton 322 

Elisplumipes 181 

vs.  nectar  of  cotton 322 

English  sparrow 230 

Epeira  riparia.    (See  Argiope  riparia.) 

stellata 163 

Epeirides  vs.  cotton-worm 1(53 

Epilachna 176 

borealis 178 

vs.  bonnet  squash 327 

Eraxapicalis 172 

bastardii 172 

Erratic  ant.     (See  Dorymyrmex  insanus.) 

Ery thrina  herbacea,  boll-worm  vs * 296 

Estimates  of  loss  by  States 67 

Euclemensia  bassettella 179 

Euphorbia  maculata,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 92 

pulcherrima,  nectar  of 323 

Europe,  boll-worm  in 297 

Ewing,  W.,  machine 255 

Exorista  flavicauda 203 

F. 

Fabricius,  J.  C.,  description  of  Noctua  gossypii 18 

Fallou,  M.  J.,  quoted 296 

Fall  plowing  as  a  remedy  for  boll- worm 314 

Felder,  P.  S.,  quoted 121 

Ferguson,  J.  M.,  article  on  cotton- worm 279 

Fires  rs.  Aletia 262 

Fire-flies 175 

First  appearance  of  cotton-worms  in  United  States 17 

Fitch,  A.,  quoted • 160,170 

Flesh-flies,  habits  of 204 

Florida,  average  losses 70 

Flour 220,226,^27,228 

Fly-stone  vs.  Aletia 261 

Forcing  cotton  as  a  remedy 231 

Forel,  Dr.  Auguste,  acknowledgments  to 189 

Formica  fusca 182,183,188 

insan  a.     (  See  Dorymyrmex  insanus. ) 

Formicariae  vs.  cotton- worms 181 ' 

Formicidae ....182,185 

Foul  brood 209 

Fountain  pump 239,241 

Fowler's  solution 220,221,224 

Frayer,  A.  M.,  quoted 146 

French,  G.  H.,  quoted 304,314 

Fruit  as  bait  for  Aletia ..'.       251 

Fuller,  E.  N.,  quoted 20,25 

Fungoid  diseases  vs.  insects 217 

G. 

Galtney,  J.  R.,  articles  on  cotton-worm 280 

Galvin,  J.,  quoted 156 

Gamble,  John,  quoted 298 

Gamble,  R.,  quoted 98 

Garden  pea,  boll- worm  vs 296 

Garrett,  J.  G.  G.,  lantern 265 

Garret,  O.H.  P.,  quoted 184 

Geese  vs.  cotton- worms ......  . . 139 

Geometridae  ...                                                                                     12 


502  INDEX. 

Page. 

Georgia,  average  losses 70 

emigration  from  Martinique  to 19 

Gilmore,  J.  W.,  quoted 138,144 

Gladiolus,  boll-worm  vs 297 

Glands  of  row-pea 7 

Glasco.J.M.,  quoted 288 

Gloger,  C.  W.  L.,  quoted 151 

Glover,  T.,  articles  on  the  cotton-worm 278,279,281,282,283,284 

commendation  of  writings  of. 75 

quoted 294,23,39,166,107,178,180,182,191,311,50:5 

work  on  cotton  insects 42 

Gorham,  D.  B.,  article  on  cotton-worm 277 

quoted 190,109 

views  on  migration  discussed 118 

Gortyna 12 

Gossypium  herbaceum,  leaf  gland  figured 318 

Goureau  Ch.,  quoted 297 

Grace,  J.  W.,  quoted %20 

Grapes,  Aletia  r« 261 

Grasshoppers  vs.  cotton- worms 1*55 

Grass-woim , 12 

predaceous  habits 17;> 

Graves,  P.  T.,  quoted 98,122 

Gray  arsenic 220, 221. 222, 223, 224,  227 

Green  chinches  vs.  cottoa- worms 107 

Green  soldier-bug  vs.  the  cotton- worm 107 

Greece,  enemies  to  the  cotton  crop  in 71 

Grote,  A.  R.,  appointment  as  special  agent ' 3 

articles  on  cotton-worm 279,281,282,283 

belief  that  Aletia  is  an  indigene  of  South  America 10 

discovery  of  the  synonym  of  A.  xylina  and  Aletia  argillacea 14 

quoted 21, 69, 90, 107, 115 

region  assigned  to 3 

suggests  the  combination  Anomis  xylina 14 

views  on  migration  discussed 119 

Ground  beetles 174 

vs.  boll-worms 311 

Guene"e,  A.,  on  the  cotton-moth 278 

Guiana,  cotton-worm  of 18 

Guinea  fowls  vs.  cotton- worm..  >..., 140 

Gypsum 220,226,227 

H. 

Hagen,  Dr.  H.  A.,  acknowledgment  of  assistance  from 8 

quoted 217,150 

Hamilton,  D.  M.,  quoted 136,184,98, 140 

Hand-picking,  as  a  remedy  for  boll- worm „ 312 

Hand,  M.  W.,  quoted 139 

Harbert,  S.,  quoted 1^4 

Harpaltis  calignosus 17.~> 

Harris,  T.  W.,  letter  to  Donbleday 13. 

T.Affleck 13 

quoted 172,24 

on  cotton-worm 2?-V-'s'1 

Harris,  W.  A.,  quoted 184,98, 122, 142 

Harvey,  Dr.  L.,  quoted 117 

Hansberger,  J.  L.,  quoted 140,  r.}* 

Hawkins,  H.,  quoted 66,288,98 

Hawk-moths 11 

Heard's  moth-trap 202 

Heliophila  lineata 14 

uuipuncta 202 

hibernation  of 309 

Heliothis  armigera,  preys  on  Aletia 179 

exprimaus f 292 

hibernation  of 309 

umbrosus 292 

Helm,  J.,  machine 253 


INDEX.  503 

Page. 

Henry,  R.  F.,  quoted 133 

Hemiptera,  members  of,  preying  on  Aletia 166 

Hemp,  boll- worm  vs 297 

Heterocera 11 

Hewitt,  Dr.,  account  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina 17 

Hibernation,  localities  of 108 

of  Aletia 99,100 

of  Aletia,  conclusions 106 

of  Aletia  pupae 99,100 

of  the  adult 101,108 

of  Heliothis... 309 

Hibiscus  grandiflorus,  boll-worm  vs 297 

Hippodamia  convergens 177 

maculata 177 

Hirundo  horreorurn  vs.  cotton-worms  142 

Historical  account  of  ravages  of  Aletia 19-46 

Hogs  vs.  cotton- worms  ...... . 138 

Holman,  W.,  quoted 184 

Hornets  vs.  cotton-worins 180, 1H1 

Howard,  C.  C.,  quoted 28tf,98 

Howard,  C.  M.,  quoted 184,122 

Howard,  L.  O.,  acknowledgment  of  assistance  from y 

Howard,  W.  R.,  article  on  cotton- worm 282 

Hoy,  Dr.  P.  R.,  acknowledgment  of  assistance  from 8 

quoted 89 

Hiibner,  J.,  description  of  Aletia  argillacea 11 

work  on  foreign  butterflies 276 

Humming-bird  moths ; 11 

Humphreys,  John,  quoted 106,107 

Hunt,  A.  W.,  M.  D.,  quoted 122,174,184 

Hymenoptera,  members  of,  preying  on  Aletia 180 

Hypena  scabralis,  mistaken  for  Aletia lOo 

I. 

Ichneiimon  flies,  habits  of 193 

Ichneumonidae,  general  consideration  of 198 

Ichneumon  seductor 112 

Icterus  Baltimore  vs.  cotton-worms 141 

Identity  of  Aletia  with  the  chenille  of  South  America  and  West  Indies 18 

India,  Enemies  to  cotton  crop  in 71 

Indian  corn,  boll- worm  vs 297 

Indigo  bird  vs.  cotton- worms 141 

Influence  of  cold  winters 133 

weather 133 

•wet  weather  on  cotton- worms 134 

winds  on  migration  of  moths 121 

Insectivorous  birds  of  cotton- belt 159 

protection  of 230 

Invertebrate  enemies  of  the  cotton- worm 162 

Investigation,  beginning  of  the  cotton- worm 45 

by  the  assembly  of  the  Bahamas 19 

when  begun 3 

Immigrations  of  Aletia.    (See  Migrations  of  Aletia 

Importance  of  natural  enemies  of  cotton-worm 211 

Ipomea  tamnifolia,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 92 

Iridomy  rmex 1&7 

McCooki 187' 

Isle  of  Wight,  boll- worm  in „ 293 

Italy,  enemies  to  the  cotton  crop  in 71 

J. 

Jackson,  J.  W.,  quoted 288 

Java,  boll- worm  in  ,       .         .  .  .   .     . 293 

Jay,  A.,  quoted 184,140,122,98 

Johnson's  dead  shot 234 

J.  W.,  machine  for  poisoning 244 

Johnston,  J   D.,  quoted 140 

Joiies,  William,  articles  on  cotton- worms 280 

quoted 100,192 

W.  J.,  appointment  as  local  observer 3 

quoted 288,258 


504;  INDEX. 

K. 

Page. 

Keary,  W.  V.,  quoted 136 

Kerosine 880,221,335,236 

King-bird  rs.  cotton-worms 141 

King,  F.  H.,  acknowledgment  of  assistance  of S,  143 

Kiug,  Peyton,  quoted 313 

Knowledge  of  the  cotton- worm,  want  of ,  among  southern  planters 7 

Knox,  Minge,  &  Evans,  quoted 184,288 

Krancher,  J.  H.,  quoted 122,98,167,166,184,178,258 

L. 

Lace-wing  flies lf>4 

Lace-wing  fly  larvae  vs.  boll-worms 311 

Lachnosterna  f  usca 172 

Lady-birds  vs.  cotton-worms , 176 

boll- worms  . ... . ......... .  . 311 

Lady-bugs  vs.  cotton-worms 176 

Lager  beer  as  bait  for  Aletia 260 

Lauipyridae 175 

Laphy  gma  f rugiperda,  predaceous  habits 179 

Larva  of  Aletia 76 

color  of  newly-hatched 76 

disappearance  of  last  brood 92 

of  third  crop 91 

duration  of  larva  state 78 

effect  of  hot  weather  upon 91 

first  appearance  in  the  spring 97 

habits  of  full  grown 80,81 

habits  of  young 77 

jumping  habits 78 

manner  of  hatching 76 

marching  habits 79 

migrations  of 91 

number  of  broods  in  a  season  83 

odor  of  cotton  affected  by 79 

other  food-plants  than  cotton 82 

probability  of  a  northern  food-plant -  89 

structure  of  feet 71 

technical  description 82 

the  three  "crops" 90 

variation  of  color  in 78 

Lasius  flavus 186 

Law,  B.  W.,  cotton  insects  collected  by,  in  Cuba 120 

Laudon,  M.  D.,  article  011  cotton-worm 278 

Leaf-miners 12 

rollers 12 

Lee,  D.,  quoted 283,67 

Lepidoptera,  characterization  of 11 

members  of ,  preying  on  Aletia - 178 

Letter  to  the  commissioner 3 

Leucauia  unipuncta 101 

attracted  to  Aletia  bait 259 

mistaken  for  Aletia 106 

Levy,  C.  A.,  poisoning  machine 250 

Lewis,  C.,  experience  with  lanterns 2U3 

Colonel,  finds  cotton- worm  May  17 97 

Libellula  trimaculata 164 

Libellullidae 164 

Lima- beans,  boll- worm  vs 297 

Limeuitus  dissippus — ..  193 

Literature  of  the  cotton- worm  up  to  1846 25 

Little,  G.,  quoted 102 

Localities  of  hibernation  of  Aletia 108 

Lockwood,  Dr.,  quoted 179 

Loggerhead  rs.  cotton- worms 142 

London  purple 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 232 

analysis  of 2:>4 

Losses  since  the  war  from  cotton-worms 70 


INDEX.  505 


Losses,  statistics  of 63-70 

summary  of ... . 69 

table  of  average 70 

Loss,  estimates  of  by  States  ./ 67 

general  estimates  of 66 

in  1877  from  cotton- worm 66 

Louisiana,  average  losses 70 

Lucerne,  boll-worm  vs 297 

Lycaena  pseudargiolus 182 

Lydella  dorypborae 203 

Lygaeus  sp.,  vs.  cotton-bolls 290 

Lyman,  J.  B.,  articles  on  cotton-worm 279,280 

quoted 310 

M. 

McCook,  H.  C.,  acknowledgment  of  assistance  from 8 

on  ants 182 

Mclntyre,  Dr.  E.  L.,  quoted 74 

McKinnon,  account  of  the  chenille  in  Bahamas 19 

D.,  work  on  West  Indies 276 

McMillan,  J.,  quoted  j... 121 

McMurtrie,  Dr.  W.,  quoted 235 

McQueen,  B.  F.,  lantern 265 

Mantis  Carolina 213 

eggs  of 165 

vs.  the  cotton-worm 165 

Marcgravia  nepenthoides,  figured 318 

nectar  of 323 

Martinique,  emigration  from,  on  account  of  the  chenille . . 19 

Maryman,  J.  A.,  quoted 140 

Marx,  G.,  acknowledgment  of  determination  of  Araneida 163 

of  servicesof 8 

Mashed  apples  as  bait  for  Aletia 261 

Matthews,  J.  C.,  quoted 121 

Maxillae  of  cotton- worm  moth 86-87 

of  moths,  structure  of . . 87 

Maypop,  nectar  of 323 

Measuring- worm  moths . 12 

Medicava  sativa,  boll- worm  vs 297 

Meekin,  F.  M.,  quoted 165, 140 

Megacephala 174 

Megachile  sp.  vs.  nectar  of  cotton 322 

Melcagris  gallopavo  vs.  cotton-worms ... ... .... 142 

Melissodes  uigra  vs.  nectar  of  cotton 322 

Melons  as  bait  for  Aletia 261 

Melospiza  melodia  vs.  cotton-worms 142 

Metallic  arsenic  vs.  Aletia 261 

Metapodius  femorata.    (See  Acanthocephala.) 

Metha,  sp 163 

Mexico,  cotton-worm  in 72 

Microgaster 198 

Migration  of  Aletia,  influence  of  winds  on 121 

of  the  moth,  chapter  on 109-132 

theory,  history  of  . . 41, 42 

Mimus  polyglottus  vs.  cotton-worms 141 

Miuot,  H.  D.,  quoted 145 

Mississippi,  average  losses 70 

Mocking-birds  vs.  cotton-worms 141 

boll- worm  moths 311 

Modes  of  applying  poisons 236 

Molasses  and  Fowler's  solution 260 

vinegar 256 

vs.  Aletia 258 

Molothoris  pecoris  vs.  cotton-worms 142 

Mouedula  Carolina „ 181 

Mouomorium 188 

carbonarium 183  188 

Morse,  L.  W.,  articles  on  cotton- worm 279 


506  INDEX. 

Page. 

Mosquito-hawks,  habits  of 104 

Moths,  destruction  of 256 

taken  for  Aletia,  list  of 10(5 

Mulberry,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 93 

Myrmeca  lineolata.    (See  Crematogaster  lineolata.) 

molesta  vs.  nectar  of  Euphorbia 324 

Myrmicidae 182,187 

'  N. 

Natural  enemies  of  the  cotton-worm 138 

habitat  of  cotton- worm 16 

Nectar  glands  of  cotton,  preliminary  remarks 85 

plant,  Prof.  Riley  on 7 

part  on 316 

Nemoraea  leucaniae 202, 203 

Nepenthes 3J9 

Nest-proof  cotton 216 

Neuroptera,  members  of,  preying  on  Aletia 1<)3 

Nezara  hilaris Ki7 

Night-hawk  vs.  cotton- worms 142 

Noctua  gossypii,  Fabr.,  mentioned  by  Harris 13 

xylina,  Say's  description  of 12 

Noctuae 12 

injurious  insects  belonging  to 12 

Noctuidae 11 

characterization  of 12 

Noctuo-phalaenidi 1.2 

Nomenclature,  chapter  on 11 

Number  of  broods  of  Aletia 88 

boll-worm 307 

Number  of  insects  eaten  by  insectiverous  birds 212 

Nuttall  club  on  the  sparrow  question 145 

O. 

Occidental  ant,  the 186 

Odom,  S.  P.,  quoted 140 

Odor  of  cotton  eaten  by  cotton- worms 79 

Oecodouia  arborea.    (See  Crematogaster  lineolata.) 

bicolor.    (See  Crematogaster  clava.) 

vs.  plants 330 

Ophideres  f  ullonica,  habits  of " 87 

structure  of  maxillae o3 

Ophiusa  xylina 13 

Orange  sirup  as  bait  for  Aletia 2(10 

Orchestria  vittata 103 

Order  for  printing  report 2 

Oriole,  the  yellow,  vs.  cotton-worms 141 

Orthoptera,  members  of,  preying  on  Aletia 105 

Orthosia  ferruginoides,  attracted  to  Aletia  bait 259 

Ortyx  virginianus  vs.  cotton-worms 142 

Ovate  Chalcis,  the 194 

Owlet-moths 11 

Oxyopes  viridaus  vs.  the  cotton-worm 103 

P. 

Packard,  A.  S.,  jr.,  article  on  cotton-worm 283 

quoted 209,89,115,117 

Painted  bunting  vs.  cotton-worms 141 

Parasites  of  Aletia,  section  on 189 

percentage  of 230 

preservation  of 230 

Parasitic  insects,  limitation  of 102 

Parasol  ants 330 

Paris  green 220,221,222,223,225,226,227,232 

circular  concerning  the  use  of 3!) 

history  of  its  introduction  as  a  cotton- worm  remedy 38 

results  of  experiments  with  in  1873 39 

test  of  purity 233 


INDEX.  507 

Page, 

Partridge  rs.  cotton- worms 142 

Paspalum  la-eve 7 

Passiflora  iucarnata,  Aletia  found  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 94 

nectar  of 323 

Past  history  of  cotton- worms,  chapter  on 16 

Pea,  boll- worm  vs. - .- —  . . .  ..       296 

Peaches  used  as  bait  for  Aletia '259 

Pelopoeus  caeruleus 180, 181 

Pentarthnmi 194 

People  of  the  South,  courtesies  from 8 

Pergaude,  Th.,  acknowledgment  of  the  services  of 8 

Persian  insect  powder 236 

Persimmons  as  bait  for  Aletia 261 

Peuriioy,  J.,  quoted 139,98 

Phalena  mori 113 

Pharbitis  nil,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 92 

Phares,  Dr.  D.  L.,  acknowledgment  of  assistance  from 8 

articles  on  cotton-worm 280 

commendation  of  writings  of 75 

quoted 27,21,20,177,182,192,168,19,98,121 

Phaseolus  vulgaris,  boll- worm  rs 296 

Pheidole  megacephala,  time  of  working 330 

Philips,  M.  W.,  article  on  cotton-worm 277 

Phoberia  atomaris  mistaken  for  Aletia 106 

Phora 231 

aletiae 208,209,214 

incrassata : 209 

Physalis  lauceolata,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 92 

Picus  pubescens  vs.  cotton-worms 142 

Pimpla - 230 

annulipes 212,200 

couquisitor 198,190,191 

mentioned  by  Dr.  Gorham 119 

Pine-apple  sirup  as  bait  for  Aletia 260 

Pitcher  plants 328,329 

Pitman,  E.,  lantern 268 

Plaster 220,227,228 

Plovers  vs.  insects 212 

Plume  moths _• - ., 12 

Plusia,  the  genus 116 

Podisus  spiuosa.    (See  Arma  spinosa) 

Pogouomy rniex  barbatus 186 

occidentals 186 

Poinsettia  pulcherrima.  figured 318 

Poisons 232 

Poisoned  sweets  vs.  Aletia 257 

Poisoning  as  a  remedy  for  boll- worm 312 

Poison,  mode  of  applying ....... . ..  — .       236 

Polistes  sp ! 180 

bellicosa 180,181 

Polyurgus  rufescens 188 

Popular  names  of  Aletia 11 

Poultry  rs.  cotton-worms 139 

Powell,  R.  H.,  quoted .       140 

Prairie  chicken  vs.  cotton-worms 142 

Predaceous  insects,  limitation  of 162 

Preuolepis  niteres 183 

pyramica.     (See  Dorymyrmex  insanus.) 

Preparations  for  poisoning,  importance  of  early 236 

Priouotus  cristatus 212, 168 

Pristiphora  grossulariae,  Arma  spinosa  rs 

Proctotrupidae 197 

Proctotrupid  parasite  of  Aletia 197 

Prodenia  autumnalis „ 180 

Prompt  action  in  poisoning,  importance  of 238 

Pseudomyrma  guarding  acacia 328 

Pterophoridae 12 

Pteris  aquilina,  nectar  of 332 

Pugh,  E.  D.,  lantern 270 


508  INDEX. 

Page. 

Pulvinaria  innumerabilis 171) 

Pumpkins,  boll-worin  vs 297 

Pupa  of  Aletia 83 

destruction  of 256 

list  of  the  plants  in  the  leaves  of  which  it  has  been  found 93 

length  of  pupa  state  of  last  brood 96 

Pnrdie,  H.  A.,  quoted 144 

Pyralidae 12 

Pyrethrum 286 

cinerariae-folium 236 

Q. 

Quails  vs.  cotton-worms 142 

Quassia  vs.  cotton- worms 216 

Quercus  aquatica,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves 92 

R. 

Raccoons  vs.  cotton-worms 138 

Rain-crow  vs.  cotton- worms 142 

Rapacious  soldier-bug 169 

Raphigaster  hilaris 167 

Raubfliegen 170 

Rear-horse  vs.  the  cotton-worm 165 

Red  peppers,  boll- worm  vs 297 

Red  River  Republican,  quoted 22 

Reduvius  novenarius 168 

raptatorius I(j9 

Red  wing  black-bird  vs.  cotton-worm 140 

Reed-bird  vs.  cotton-worms 141 

Reese,  W.  P.,  article  on  cotton- worm 283 

Remedies,  chapter  on , _  2-5 

Report,  printing  ordered 7 

Rhiuuchus  nasulus.    (See  Acanthocephala  femorata.) 

Rhopalocera 11 

Rice-birds  vs.  cotton- worms 141 

Richards,  E.,  quoted 23 

Richardson,  C.  B.,  quoted... 138,140 

Ricinus  communis,  tigured 318 

Ridgway,  R.,  acknowledgment  of  assistance  from 8 

list  of  southern  birds  furnished  by 159 

quoted 148 

Rigels,  Mark,  lantern 272,273 

Riley,  C.  V.,  acknowledgment  of  determinations  of  parasites  by 8 

articles  on  cotton- worm 281,262,283,284 

disputed  by  Grote,  A.  R 116 

history  of  the  cotton-worm  investigation  as  conducted  by 3 

proposes  Paris  green  as  a  remedy 38 

quoted 201,205,289,300,295, 117,  K> 

region  of  country  assigned  to 3 

Ring-legged  Pimpla 200 

Robber-flies 170 

Robinson,  W.  T.,  sprinkler  and  duster 251,  252 

Rocky  Mountain  locust,  killed  by  Tachinas 203 

Rodgers,  J.  R.,  quoted 122 

Roosevelt,  T.,  jr..  quoted 145 

Rose  mallow,  boll-worm  vs 297 

Rosin 220,226,227,228 

Rotation  of  crops  as  a  remedy  for  boll- worm 312 

Royall's  mixture 220,222,227 

Rum  as  bait  for  Aletia 2(iO 

Russell,  R.  W.,  quoted 98 

S. 

St.  Landry  Whig,  quoted 22 

Sanderson,  E.,  quoted 294 

San  Domingo,  cotton-worm  in 72 

Sap  sucker,  vs.  cotton-worms 142 


INDEX.  509 


Sarcopbaga  carnaria,  figured 204 

n.sp 206 

sarraceniae 205 

sp 212 

Sarcophagidae,  general  remarks  upon 204 

Sarracenia  flava 203 

Sarracenia,  sarcophaga  in  leaves  of 205 

variolaris    20C 

variolaris,  nectar  of 328 

Sassafras,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of ,  92 

Saunders,  W.,  description  of  Depressaria  gossypiella 14 

Say,  Tbomas,  describes  Noctua  xylina 12 

letter  to  Dr.  Capers 12 

original  description  of  cotton-moth 276 

quoted 199,201 

Scbizoneura  Americana,  Sinea  muitispinosa,  vs.., 170 

Schwarz,  E.  A.,  engagement  of —  3 

quoted 139,165 

trip  through  the  South  in  the  winter  of  1878-1879 101, 105 

Scoliadae 181 

Seabrook,  Hon.  W.  B.,  quoted , 17,19,25,139 

on  cotton- worm 277 

Semasia  prunivora 179 

Serville,  quoted 202 

Shaw,  H.  B.,  quoted 122 

Sherriod,  C.  F.,  quoted .' 140 

Sialia  sialis  vs.  cotton-worms 141 

Sicily,  enemies  to  the  cotton  crop  in 71 

Sida  spinosa,  Aletia  webbing  lip  in  leaves  of 92 

Sinea  rnultispinosa 169 

Sinyphia  comraunis 163 

Sirup  vs.  Aletia 258 

Smith  and  Calhoun  quoted 98 

E.  A.,  appointment  as  local  observer 3 

quoted 92,93,94,97,259,101 

Smith,  Miss  Emma  A.,  quoted 172 

Smith- Vaniz,  G.  W.,  letter  from 143 

quoted 209,141 

Snout-moths 12 

Solanum  carolinense,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 92 

Soldier  beetles 175 

bug 166 

Solenopsis 188 

fugax 188 

xyloni 188,183 

Sorsby,  Col.  B.  A.,  quoted 258 

Sources  of  information  for  past  history , 16 

South  Carolina,  average  losses 70 

Spalding,  Mr.,  quoted ."..-.  19 

Sparrow,  clapping,  vs.  cotton- worms 142 

field,  vs.  cotton-worms 142 

song,  vs.  cotton- worms    142 

the  English,  controversy 142 

Sphingidae , 11 

Spiders,  j  umping,  vs.  cotton-worms 162 

vs.  boll- worms 311 

cotton-worms 162 

Spillman,  W.,  quoted 140,122 

Spined  soldier-bug  vs.  the  cotton- worm 166 

Spinners 11 

Spizella  fnsilla  vs.  cotton-worms , 142 

Squash,  boll-worm  vs 297 

Statistics  of  losses , 63,70 

Stelle,  J.  P.,  articles  on  cotton-worms    281,282,283 

proposes  Paris  green  as  a  remedy 38 

Stephens,  J.  R.,  lantern 267 

Stickney,  W.  A.,  letter  from,  on  first  use  of  Paris  green 38 

Stith,  J.,  cotton-worm  exterminator 274 

Stolenwerck,  H.  A.,  quoted 140 


510  INDEX. 

Page. 

Strawberry  simp,  as  bait  for  Aletia 260 

Stria (i- beans,  boll-worms  rs 296 

Strychnia  vs.  Aletia 259 

Summary  of  losses ., 69 

Sweet-gum,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 92 

potato,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 92 

Sweets,  poisoned 257' 

Synonomy  of  Aletia,  history  of 12* 

the  cotton-moth 15 

T. 

Table  of  amount  of  damage 47-62 

average  losses 70 

winds 128 

Tachina , 230 

aletiae 212,203 

vs.  heliothis 311 

anonym  a 203 

vs.  heliothis 311 

flies,  habits  of 202 

vs.  grasshoppers 202 

sp 204,212 

Tachinidae,  remarks  on 202 

Tackaberry,  S.  B.,  quoted 184 

Tassel- worm 308 

Taylor,  F.  G.  H.,  article  on  cotton-worm 281 

Telea  polyphemus 201 

Tennessee,  average  losses 70 

Tethragnatha  extensa  , 163 

Tetracha  Carolina 174 

virginica  .. .  . .  174 

Tetramorium  caespitum 188 

Tetrastichus 195 

Texas,  average  losses 70 

worm  destroyer 220,221,222,223,224 

cotton- worm  destroyer 232 

Theridium  funebre l(-3 

globosum 1G3 

Thick-thighed  metapodius  vs.  the  cotton-worm. 1G7 

Thompson,  E.  M.,  quoted 121,171 

Tiger  beetles 173 

Tineidae 12 

Tobacco,  boll-worm  va 297 

Tomatoes,  boll- worm  va 295 

Tomato-worm,  use  of  name 292 

Toombs,  Hon.  R.,  ravages  of  worms  on  plantation  of 21 

Topping  cotton  as  a  remedy  for  boll- worm 312 

Tortricidae  .  12 

Townshend,  Jno.,  method  of  saving  crop 25 

quoted 139 

Treat,  Mrs.  Mary,  quoted 296,302 

Trelease,  W.,  appointment  as  special  agent 7 

quoted 168, 166, 164, 163, 184, 180, 179, 177, 215, 203, 37 

recalled  to  Washington 8 

scope  of  work 7,8 

Trichogamma  evanescens 194 

minuta 193 

pretiosa 193 

Trimen,  E.,  quoted 87 

Turkey,  the  wild,rs.  cotton-worms 142 

vs.  cotton-worms 139 

Turpentine,  oil  of 220,221,225 

Tyrannus  carolinensis  va.  cotton- worms 141 

U 

Unnamed  chalcid  parasite 196 

Upton,  W.  S.,  article  on  cotton-worm 2'7 

Ure,  Andrew,  work  on  cotton  manufacture 277 


INDEX.  511 


Page. 

Vanessa  atalanta ..,  .— -. 103 

Vaudreuil,  Governor,  dispatch  of 18 

Vertebrate  enemies  of  the  cotton- worm 138 

Vespa,  maculata 180,181 

sp 180 

Vespariae  vs.  cotton-worms 180 

Vicia  sativa,  nectar  of 33& 

Vinegar  as  bait  for  Aletia 260 

W 

Wailes.B.  C.  L.,  account  of  the  cotton-worm 13 

on  cotton- worm 278 

article  on  cotton-worm 283 

Waldo,  J.  C  ,  article  on  cotton-worm 283 

Walsh  and  Riley,  articles  on  cotton-worm 279 

B.  D.,  article  on  cotton- worm 279 

Wasps  vs.  boll-worms 311,180 

Watermelon,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leaves  of 92 

Watts,  F.  A.,  circular  of 39 

P.  S.,  quoted 1S4 

Weather,  influence  of 133 

Webb,  G.  F.,  quoted 140,166 

Welch,  C.,  quoted 140 

West  Indies,  cotton- worm  of =, 10 

Wet  poisons 238 

weather,  influence  of,  on  the  worms 134 

Wheat- head  army  worm. 12 

Wheel-bug 168 

Whitman's  fountain  pump 239,241 

Whitner,  B.  F.,  quoted 289,24,21 

Whitney,  A.  K.,  quoted 233 

Wilkins,  J.,  quoted 166 

Willet,  J.  E.,  appointment  as  local  observer 3 

quoted 214,167,94,95,96 

trip  to  South  Georgia  in  search  of  hibernating  moths 101 

Williams,  R.  J.,  quoted 138 

Williams,  R.  S.,  quoted 98 

Willie,  W.  F.,  machine  for  poisoning 243 

sifter 248 

Winds,  influence  of.  on  migrations  of  moths 121 

table  of. 128 

Winf ree,  P.,  article  on  cotton-worm 277 

quoted 181,20 

Winters,  influence  of  cold 133 

Worm-proof  cotton 216 

Wyman,  Jeffries,  quoted 119 

X. 

Xanthium  strumarium,  Aletia  webbing  up  in  leavers  of 92 

Xysticus  sp 163 

Y. 

Yeast,  experiments  with,  on  Aletia 217,218 

torulae  rs.  insects , 217 

Yellow-banded  ichneumon 198 

fever  vs.  cotton-insect  investigation 6 

jacket  ra.  cottou- worms 141 

oriole  vs.  cotton- worms 141 

Young,  J.  W.,  poison-sifter , 246 

W.,  quoted 184 

Z. 

Zimmerman,  J.  H.,  article  on  the  cotton-worm 278 

quoted 294 

Zygaenidae 11 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


FEB  1  4 

MAY  3  Otata 


Form  L-9-15m-7,'32 


SB 

608  U.S.   Dept. 
_C8U5  of  agric.  - 
Report  upon 
cotton  insects. 


DC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


001  100  236    7 


UNIVERRTTY  of  CALIFORNIA 


8RABT 


